You haven’t done anything special, Red Sox and Yankees. You’ve spent your way to the top. You’re the Paris Hilton of baseball, successful because you’re rich, a winner only because there’s no plausible way for you to lose.

The Tigers have a higher payroll than the Red Sox this season. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear that there's no plausible way for them to lose!

But the Tigers don't have the One Hundred Million Dollar Player Development Machine.

The Tigers don't have a Bristol-based national cable network with a Hall of Fame propagandis-- uh, er, correspondent Peter Gammons shilling for them and every navel-gazing quandary they face.

The Tigers don't have a Bristol-based national cable network with a Hall of Fame propagandis-- uh, er, correspondent Peter Gammons shilling for them and every navel-gazing quandary they face.

And this helps them win games how?

You haven’t done anything special, Red Sox and Yankees. You’ve spent your way to the top. You’re the Paris Hilton of baseball, successful because you’re rich, a winner only because there’s no plausible way for you to lose.

Wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

You haven’t done anything special, Red Sox and Yankees. You’ve spent your way to the top. You’re the Paris Hilton of baseball, successful because you’re rich, a winner only because there’s no plausible way for you to lose.

Yeah, there's no way that the Yanks could have missed the playoffs without Hughes, Kennedy, Wang, Chamberlain, Matsui and Posada, or with Jeter playing hurt for the first two months, and Cano playing as if he might as well have been. They were never counting on any of those stiffs to begin with.

No sympathy required for the Steinbrenners, but if money could simply buy you championships, you'd have the Mets, the Dodgers and the Cubs dominating the NL every year.

Judging from 2008 only, we appear to have entered the era in which the Mets, the Dodgers, and the Cubs dominate the NL. But it may not happen every year.

If the Dodgers are entering a period of dominance, it sure as hell won't be because of all the players they bought.

I don't think Sabean cares enough about whether he beats the Rockies for 3rd place, so signing Bonds is pointless to his team's success (though he'd probably draw enough extra fans to make it a worthwhile business decision).

Bonds would really make baseball sense for the Rays right now, but at this point I'd say there's a 99% chance nobody signs him. After September 1st I'll say 100%, as he wouldn't be playoff eligible.

Raul Ibanez would make sense for the Rays even more. What happened with the waiver claim on him?

The Tigers got the claim and failed to work out a deal.

Barry Bonds could teach BJ Upton how to run out ground balls.

Cruelest of all has been the Major League Draft...They drafted Delmon Young first overall in 2003 but unloaded him after his disgruntled act highlighted by a 50-game suspension for flipping his bat at a Triple A umpire. Another first-rounder, five-tool OF Rocco Baldelli (2000), has had his promising career gutted by injuries. A legally troubled third-rounder, Elijah Dukes (2002), is a budding superstar ... in Washington. Upton, the No. 2 overall pick in 2002, is becoming a pain in the ass.

I guess that's one way to look at it. Another is to say they pulled off a coup by selling high on Young (long after the bat flip), that Baldelli has been replaced in center by a more talented player (also drafted, and a pain in the ass many teams wish they had), that Dukes is nowhere near fulfilling his promise, and that they drafted their best overall player just 2 years ago.

You haven’t done anything special, Red Sox and Yankees. You’ve spent your way to the top. You’re the Paris Hilton of baseball, successful because you’re rich,

hear! hear!

THE RAYS JUST INTENTIONALLY WALKED JOSH HAMILTON WITH THE BASES LOADED!!!!

I really hate that move, not only is it bad strategy (a home run will win the game now) but it gives too much credit to Hamilton who is very good but hardly other-worldly and not enough credit to the Rays relievers who have gotten out whoever they have needed to this season.

Just wait until the Mariners become the first $100 mil payroll team with 100 losses - you'll all quit braying about those East Coast teams then.

THE RAYS JUST INTENTIONALLY WALKED JOSH HAMILTON WITH THE BASES LOADED!!!!

Anyone with PI care to see if that's happened since Bonds? I can't remember hearing about it since Barry's best years.

As far as the article is concerned I'm getting pretty sick of the apparent attitude among people, including other Rays fans, that the team is in some kind of trouble and had better make a big move to save the season. They have a 4.5 game lead now and just finished off a 7-3 road trip without Crawford or Longoria. Sure, bad opponents, but hardly anyone is doing well on the road this season and they're 30-31 now.

Looking through splits, last time it happened was 1998, and Bonds happens to have one that year, so Hamilton is the latest since Bonds.

The Tigers don't have a Bristol-based national cable network with a Hall of Fame propagandis-- uh, er, correspondent Peter Gammons shilling for them and every navel-gazing quandary they face.

Please. Whatever shilling Gammons does for the Sox doesn't come close to balancing out the vast number of play-by-play men and analysts, especially on the national TV crews, who climax every time they see one of the Angels "play the game the right way" by Mickey Hatchering at the first pitch and accidentally advancing a runner one base.

This happens regardless of game situation: early innings, late innings, close games, blowouts, Izturis at the plate or Guerrero: if there's a man on second and no outs and you hit a 27-hopper to the second baseman, if you're an Angel, you are Playing The Game The Right Way, Because Mike Scioscia Is The Only Manager Who Understands What's Right.

And that's before we start talking about the Angel-slurping by the print columnists.

Please. Whatever shilling Gammons does for the Sox doesn't come close to balancing out the vast number of play-by-play men and analysts, especially on the national TV crews, who climax every time they see one of the Angels "play the game the right way"

wow. that could be the first time I have ever heard that ESPN is the pimp for any team west of the Hudson. Everybody knows that the world wide leader gets wood for anything Bawsten. Arguing otherwise is foolish, IMO.

And that's before we start talking about the Angel-slurping by the print columnists.

really?
which columnists are those, cus the Angels don't get any play here, and repoz pretty much has his finger on all the biggees ..

edit: odd that you can't link to just the angels feed,

As an Angels fan, I would agree that the Angel love (on FOX) can be over the top. However, its rather unsurprising that people who advocate "little ball" (like everyone on FOX) would appreciate the Angels style and ability to execute,. If you think that approach to the game flawed, thats a fair criticism, but its got nothing to do with "shilling" for a franchise.

Gammons running around Harvard with an ESPN crew asking Classics Professors whether Shakespearean or Petrarchan Sonnets best encompass the brilliance of Coco Crisp's outfield defense is a somewhat different problem.

The Sox love aside, the biggest problem ESPN has is that virtually all of its contributors live on the East Coast and/or don't watch many games on the West Coast. This is why if you watch ESPN this week, you'll almost certainly hear someone wonder whether the Angels will continue starting Gary Matthews or whether someone will step up to replace Justin Spier. Its also why you get the "play the game the right way" stuff, the announcers/anchors don't know enough about the squad to say much else.

I can appreciate geographical constraints, but would it be ####### impossible to have one guy watch the late games and draft some talking points for the BBTN guys. At least pretend you're a national network. In addition, save for Oakland, every team in the western time zone has great young pitching or at least a great to phenomenal young pitcher. They are the stars of the future and if you advertise these guys, people will tune in to watch them.

save for Oakland, every team in the western time zone has great young pitching or at least a great to phenomenal young pitcher.

Aaaaaand, you just lost any credibility you had on the subject.

Aaaaaand, you just lost any credibility you had on the subject.

Good point, ESPN should get Greg Smith on the air before its too late. He could be the next Steve Carlton.

The context of my remark was young talent that ESPN should be showcasing (i.e. Felix, Lincecum, Billingsley.) Anyone familiar with ESPN's preference for showing major-league games would have concluded I was referring to young, major-league talent, not guys who might be good in the big-leagues someday. Oakland has exactly zero pitchers in the former class.

It warms my heart, as a former UF student, to see a reference to The Alligator. Their sports coverage was better than this most of the time.

I was referring to young, major-league talent, not guys who might be good in the big-leagues someday. Oakland has exactly zero pitchers in the former class.

I know this is not his best season, but Huston Street maybe...
Also, have you seen Joey Devine?
And Greg Smith has a 101 ERA+ in 142.7 innings in his first major league season. How is that not young, major-league talent?

And if those don't qualify, who are you picking from the Angels?

Just read the game story for the Rays game yesterday.

1. Walking Hamilton was crazy! I wouldn't have done it, which is why I'm not a manager.
2. Only 18,000 for a Sunday game? The Tampa/St. Pete area is missing a hell of a show.

The context of my remark was young talent that ESPN should be showcasing (i.e. Felix, Lincecum, Billingsley.) Anyone familiar with ESPN's preference for showing major-league games would have concluded I was referring to young, major-league talent, not guys who might be good in the big-leagues someday. Oakland has exactly zero pitchers in the former class.

The A's have youn, major league ready talent on the pitching staff, just not STARS like the guys you mentioned. I don't blame America for not getting excited about Greg Smith. I like him, but there's nothing compelling about him to a neutral fan.

I assume the reference would be Ervin Santana, who has a 122 ERA+, fabulous component numbers, and front-of-the-rotation stuff. I wouldn't trade Santana for five Greg Smiths or five Joey Devines.

Street's a more interesting pick, but he's by far the weakest of the pitchers discussed.

A's don't have a special talent like King Felix or Timmy, but they do lead the AL in ERA still. That's got to count for something.

I assume the reference would be Ervin Santana, who has a 122 ERA+, fabulous component numbers

... yeah, this year.
Last season he had 79 ERA+ and gawdawful component numbers. Much, much worse than Greg Smith is doing at the same age, withour 2 years of MLB expirience. So for the first time in 4 major league seasons, he's managed to string together 150 good innings. Color me sceptical.

Sorry, but you're going to have a tough time convincing me that Santana is more deserving of the spotlight, unless your argumentation is built on him having a sexier name...

You haven’t done anything special, Red Sox and Yankees. You’ve spent your way to the top. You’re the Paris Hilton of baseball, successful because you’re rich,

They weren't born rich. They got rich because they built large followings, which in turn was because they were successful.

So what does that make the Rays? The airline industry of baseball? Always losing money, continually getting bailed out by the other teams via revenue-sharing payouts and preferential draft picks, an inability to translate success into dollars... Sounds as fair as the Paris Hilton comment.

Also, Santana's #'s are pretty skewed, because he gets to face the Mariners and A's so often this season:

OAK 4 27 1.33
SEA 3 22 2.45
KCR 1 9 0.00

That's over a third of his innings against essentially no-hit teams...

The Rangers are the team in his division his faced the least often, and he has no starts against Boston or the White Sox:

TEX 2 14 5.79

I'm not slagging the A's, nor Mr. Smith (at least not right now.) Simply put, the A's lack front-line major league starters who people might tune in to see. They may have them soon, right now they don't. They have, as noted, pitched very well as a team this year (though a decent chunk of that is now in Chicago) and have some nice young pieces. My point, however, was that ESPN should present the great young pitchers who currently pitch out west, and Oakland doesn't have anyone who fits that bill. (I also ignored relievers, but if that's your fancy, there's a youngster with the Angels with a nasty sinking fastball who you might enjoy.)

With respect to the Angels, Ervin was my thought (along with Lackey who is older than I recollected and wouldn't fit.) Santana has been a good pitcher for his age in 3 of 4 major league seasons, very good in 06 and 08. He's about to wrap up his second top-ten in WHIP in his age 25 season. He also throws three plus pitches, strikes out a hitter per inning, has a 4 to 1 K/BB and unlike Smith, he can dominate deep into games. More specifically, I can already point to at least 5 or 6 Santana outings that I would have paid to see even were he pitching against my squad. I don't think Mr. Smith falls into this category.

So for the first time in 4 major league seasons, he's managed to string together 150 good innings. Color me sceptical.

I guess the world is full of 23 year olds throwing 200 plus innings with a 107 ERA+. That credibility crack seems a lot funnier now.

In any case, rather than get sidetracked, my point was that there are a bunch of young studs out west and I think ESPN does a really poor job of covering them and letting the ESPNworld see just how good they are.

but they do lead the AL in ERA still. That's got to count for something.

Defense and ballpark.

A's don't have a special talent like King Felix or Timmy, but they do lead the AL in ERA still. That's got to count for something.

Toronto and Tampa don't exist anymore?

Only 18,000 for a Sunday game? The Tampa/St. Pete area is missing a hell of a show.

I believe Tampa is about to get bombed by a hurricane, although I'm not sure that's the sole reason for the low number.

On that note, does anyone know what happens to the Angel/Ray series this week? They aren't playing tonight are they?

The Sox love aside, the biggest problem ESPN has is that virtually all of its contributors live on the East Coast and/or don't watch many games on the West Coast.

Except their two most prominent voices, Miller and Morgan, are West Coast guys.

I believe Tampa is about to get bombed by a hurricane, although I'm not sure that's the sole reason for the low number.

On that note, does anyone know what happens to the Angel/Ray series this week? They aren't playing tonight are they?

They sure are, at the usual 7:10 starting time. That hurricane may represent The Last Best Hope for the Yankees and the Red Sox.

Only 18,000 for a Sunday game? The Tampa/St. Pete area is missing a hell of a show.

I believe Tampa is about to get bombed by a hurricane, although I'm not sure that's the sole reason for the low number.

Last night's game was played in Arlington. Pretty sure hurricane concerns didn't affect attendance one whit.

Last season he had 79 ERA+ and gawdawful component numbers. Much, much worse than Greg Smith is doing at the same age, withour 2 years of MLB expirience. So for the first time in 4 major league seasons, he's managed to string together 150 good innings. Color me sceptical.

Greg Smith is Kirk Rueter with fewer grounders. I don't think Smith can keep this up - his HR rate is way too low given his mediocre stuff and flyball rate (5.25 xFIP). I think he's got something of Rueter's ability to beat his component stats - the best pickoff move since Rueter's or Pettitte's that I've seen - but overall, I think he's more of a swingman than a starter, unlikely to post an ERA+ above 100. If Smith can start to get some ground balls, he might be able to put together a career, but I think odds are good (under 50/50, but good) that 2008 is the high point of his career.

If we want to talk about previous years, Smith had a 3.5 ERA in the high minors last year, and he ranked as Arizona's #13 prospect in 2008. This season is way above expectation. Santana was a top prospect in the Angels organization for a few years before breaking into the majors, and this season is perfectly within the expectations set for him as a prospect.

Did Doyel manage to get a jab at Jim Calhoun in this article?

I guess the world is full of 23 year olds throwing 200 plus innings with a 107 ERA+. That credibility crack seems a lot funnier now.

Well, I wouldn't say they grow on trees, but the Rays currently have 3 24-year olds doing better in their Rotation...

Also Ervin that year had a .267 vs his .292 career. He was walking about as many as he was in his disastrous 2007, and striking out considerably fewer.
And are you going to contest the fact that he has had an incredibly easy schedule so far this season?

More specifically, I can already point to at least 5 or 6 Santana outings that I would have paid to see even were he pitching against my squad. I don't think Mr. Smith falls into this category.

3.5 MLB years vs 0.5 MLB year...

In any case, rather than get sidetracked, my point was that there are a bunch of young studs out west and I think ESPN does a really poor job of covering them and letting the ESPNworld see just how good they are.

I don't disagree, but Ervin ranks below some of the guys Oakland has. Unless you argue that he is more appealing to the general public. But if they are allready doing what is more appealing by sticking to the east coast...

Last night's game was played in Arlington. Pretty sure hurricane concerns didn't affect attendance one whit.

On the flip side, it makes it kind of hard to blame the Tampa/St. Pete citizens for not making the road trip to North Texas.

On the flip side, it makes it kind of hard to blame the Tampa/St. Pete citizens for not making the road trip to North Texas.

I guess that they don't travel as well as Notre Dame, Red Sox, or Yankee fans.

I don't disagree, but Ervin ranks below some of the guys Oakland has.

You seriously, honestly think that Ervin Santana is not as good as Greg Smith? I really hope you're an A's fan, because at least fanboy-delusional is a defensible state of mind.

Last night's game was played in Arlington. Pretty sure hurricane concerns didn't affect attendance one whit.

I blame Shooty for his malicious attempt to mislead. May his soul perish in fire or his lunch be overcooked. Whatever brings him more torment.

I blame Shooty for his malicious attempt to mislead. May his soul perish in fire or his lunch be overcooked. Whatever brings him more torment.

D'oh. This is what I get for only skimming the game re-caps.

3.5 MLB years vs 0.5 MLB year...

Yes, and let's also completely ignore the fact that Ervin didn't really "break" into the majors. He was called up because a bunch of guys were hurt, primarily Colon and Escobar, and the Angels were desperate. He responded with a horrible outing in his debut (he gave up the cycle to the first four batters he faced), and a shutout of the eventual World Champions in his next start.

He came up in 2005, and he really shouldn't have made his debut in the majors until sometime around late 2006 if things had gone according to plan. I'm not sure the fact the Angels were forced to call him up over a year early is a point in his favor in terms of development and experience.

And while were on the subject of young Angels pitchers and ERA+, let's not forget that Joe Saunders currently sits at 136. And he did that after already putting up a couple of Greg Smith years. So I'm not really sure why there's such a love fest for Greg Smith.

As for Bonds and the Rays, I guess winning trumps all, and I'm not a Bonds hater, but it seems to me that the Rays are a good story who stand a chance to be the darlings that everyone slobbers over during the playoffs as the young, low payroll, longtime loser franchise that finally breaks through. I'm not sure what that means for marketing and such, but I'd imagine that if they signed Bonds, they'd enter the playoffs as one of the most despised teams. Like I said, maybe it's better to win and be hated than to lose, but that seems like some medium term bad will they'd be picking up.

I really hate that move, not only is it bad strategy (a home run will win the game now) but it gives too much credit to Hamilton who is very good but hardly other-worldly and not enough credit to the Rays relievers who have gotten out whoever they have needed to this season.

Yeah, but if Hamilton hit a home run, he probably would've hit it REALLY FAR. Isn't that what really matters?

Santana was a top prospect in the Angels organization for a few years before breaking into the majors, and this season is perfectly within the expectations set for him as a prospect.

Yeah, but at some stage prospect hype has to give way to what he's actually showen at the big stage. 2005-2007 he had almost 500 innings of 90ish ERA+. That's giving him full credit for his 2006 BABIP spike. And now in a season he's had a really easy schedule, he's put up some good numbers. Big deal, until he does it over a season facing better opposition, I'm not buying it.

You seriously, honestly think that Ervin Santana is not as good as Greg Smith? I really hope you're an A's fan, because at least fanboy-delusional is a defensible state of mind.

No I'm just really arguing my case against Ervin Santana at this stage. I dothink they are both decidedly average right now. FWIW Smith has probably got a higher chance of getting "figured out" and tanking at this stage. Then again, I wasn't the one advocating one of them should get a boatload of espn air-time devoted to them...
And I'll still take Street over either of them.

And while were on the subject of young Angels pitchers and ERA+, let's not forget that Joe Saunders currently sits at 136.

Well, Saunders is 27. But if you are taking him, I am definately taking Ziegler, who currently is sitting pretty at 1768 ERA+.

Except Santana isn't average right now. He's decidedly above average. He may not have been average last year and his schedule may be part of this year's success (although this argument requires a lot more ag labor than I generally enjoy) but he's not average now. He's a strike out per inning guy with great stuff and great all-around numbers. Smith, who may be a solid pitcher, is none of those things.

Cruelest of all has been the Major League Draft...They drafted Delmon Young first overall in 2003 but unloaded him after his disgruntled act highlighted by a 50-game suspension for flipping his bat at a Triple A umpire. Another first-rounder, five-tool OF Rocco Baldelli (2000), has had his promising career gutted by injuries. A legally troubled third-rounder, Elijah Dukes (2002), is a budding superstar ... in Washington. Upton, the No. 2 overall pick in 2002, is becoming a pain in the ass.

Yeah. I don't think this paragraph shows any perspective on how the draft usually works out. The Rays have done very well for themselves in the draft, especially under their current regime. If you want to see a team that's drafted poorly, look at the Pirates.

Save for Oakland, every team in the western time zone has great young pitching or at least a great to phenomenal young pitcher.

I remember someone on here telling me not that long ago that Gio Gonzalez was going to do just fine replacing the departed A's starters, because his minor league numbers were so great.