By the way, for those of you who just can't get enough of me, my newest work is "Taxation Issues In Drafting Employee Secondment Agreements", which is going to appear in the next number of Taxation of Executive Compensation and Retirement from Federated Press.

Be sure not to miss it, head down to your local law library next month for all the spine-tingling action!

http://economics.about.com
Wow. You've now taken away the title of "Most boring sounding journal article" (Bauxite division) away from me. Thanks a lot.

Now if you can defeat my officemate and Chris Chambers at CalTech, you can win the championship of the universe.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike Ribiero's antics yesterday were absolutely disgusting. It's an affront to every player who has ever been legitimately injured and can't get a whistle. Absolutely disgusting.

If he was in fact playacting, it's not good, and I agree with Mike.

But in his defense, he did get sandwiched, and he's not a big guy. It had to hurt. Now if he wasn't permanently or seriously injured, but he just felt a lot of pain, is it wrong for him to act like he's in pain?

It's not easy to determine. Yes, he would be breaking the "macho code", which says that pain doesn't exist in hockey. (s Nick Boynton said after the game, "He's not much of a man if he's not embarrassed after doing that.") But is it wrong to do so? I tend not to think so, though overdramatizing (which he almost certainly did) is wrong. It's not even at the same level of "wrong" as the two-handed slashes that we see ten, fifteen times a game, but it's wrong. The referees would have been entirely within their rights to call an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on him.

He went back to the bench and didn't even go to the dressing room, so clearly it wasn't that bad, and I hope Bob Gainey or Claude Julien give him enough of an earful that we never see it again. I think what Ribeiro did was a very bad idea, and I didn't like it from an aesthetic point of view, but it's dangerous to interpret something as playacting when you're not there.

http://economics.about.com
He went back to the bench and didn't even go to the dressing room, so clearly it wasn't that bad, and I hope Bob Gainey or Claude Julien give him enough of an earful that we never see it again. I think what Ribeiro did was a very bad idea, and I didn't like it from an aesthetic point of view, but it's dangerous to interpret something as playacting when you're not there.

The guy shot a big shit eating grin toward the Boston bench about a minute after. I mean, the dude was laughing at the Bruins! If he wasn't playacting, why would he do that?

Contrast that to Vancouver goalie Dan Cloutier, who was legitimately injured and couldn't buy a whistle. The guy was even forced to make a save!

Cheers,

Mike

Well, I definitely have a beef with referees swallowing their whistles when a guy appears to be hurt. But that seems separate from Ribeiro's situation. (The fact that an injustice was done to Dan Cloutier has nothing to do with Ribeiro's little drama).

At any rate, whatever your take on what he did, there is little doubt that Ribeiro will get his. He's going to get pounded out there on Tuesday.

I have to give credit where credit is due. Griffin actually put out a pretty good column this morning.

Well, he was snarky, but he is right.

Then again, I'm snarky too.

Lets get two things strait about the hockey game last night. If it's okay to get knocked down and then crosschecked to stay down(not saying it was a hard crosscheck), it should be okay to stay down. How can you get an interference penalty for skating in front of someone, and not one for keeping a guy down. Riberio shouldn't have acted the way he did AFTER he got up, and if he had just sat on the bench looking hurt, no one would have said anything. Secondly, what about when the bruin was gonna get leveled by begin and threw his stick and turtled, injuring begins knee. Which play was worse?

http://economics.about.com
Well, I definitely have a beef with referees swallowing their whistles when a guy appears to be hurt. But that seems separate from Ribeiro's situation.

In the long run, they're not separate. If there's an increase in guys who fake injuries to get calls, then the refs are going to put away their whistles whenever anyone appears hurt, which will lead to more situations like Cloutier's last night. In the long run, the two have everything to do with each other.

At any rate, whatever your take on what he did, there is little doubt that Ribeiro will get his. He's going to get pounded out there on Tuesday.

Agreed. Kelly Hrudey commented last night that from now on you'd pretty much have to shoot Ribeiro before you're assessed a penalty on him. Hrudey also seemed to think his own teammates would beat the snot out of him. It's such a stupid thing to do.

The problem guys like Hrudey, Ron MacLean, and me have with the situation wasn't the fact that Ribiero fell to the ice flopping around like an elderly Parkinson's patient who fell in the tub. It's the fact he taunted the Bruins afterward. If he had just got up, skated to the bench, and shut up, nobody would have cared.

Cheers,

Mike

http://bluejayscheerclub.com
Mike, you just hit on one of my favourite bands in the universe.

I saw 'em at Massey Hall when they toured to support Woodface, and saw Neil at a free Harborfront gig a few years back supporting Try Whistling This.

If he had just got up, skated to the bench, and shut up, nobody would have cared.

Can't deny that.

People in Boston are more pissed about the booing of the national anthem. But that's par for the course in Canada (well, maybe just Quebec) I suppose.

As for Ribiero...

"(f) When a player is injured so that he cannot continue play or go to his bench, the play shall not be stopped until the injured player's Team has secured possession of the puck; if the player's Team is in possession of the puck at the time of injury, play shall be stopped immediately unless his Team is in a scoring position.

(NOTE) In the case where it is obvious that a player has sustained a serious injury, the Referee and/or Linesman may stop the play immediately."

It's OK to stay down, obviously, but Ribiero was acting like he'd just been shot in the chest. He had to act that way to get the officials to stop play with the Bruins still in possession of the puck on a scoring opportunity. But what can you do as an official? You pretty much have to stop play in case the guy isn't faking it.

Lost in all of this was the Ohlund hit on Iginla... no call... textbook boarding... I dunno whats up with hockey officials nowadays but they just appear to be completely inept. Three games, three instances of controversial officiating or the lack thereof.

Whaddup with that?

http://www.torontobaseballguys.com
From the way Ribeiro was laying there, it looked like his shoulder had been dislocated. The first thing the trainer did was go under his jersey, as though he was going to pop it back in. (I paid close attention, as I have Ribeiro in my pool - unfortunately no Oscar points are awarded). It was a clever - if completely dishonourable - thing to do, but ONLY if he gets up and keeps it to himself. He could have told the story at an alumni banquet in 20 years. Now he's going to wear a big target on his chest, and he'll need an appendage lying two zones away to get an injury whistle in the future.

The Iginla hit should have been a penalty, and I don't understand why the refs were reluctant to call it. Usually their tendency is to call a penalty on the team leading by a goal, even late in the game.

i think we should let speiers close.

http://economics.about.com
The Iginla hit should have been a penalty, and I don't understand why the refs were reluctant to call it. Usually their tendency is to call a penalty on the team leading by a goal, even late in the game.

I was going to bring that up, but as a diehard Flames fan I didn't want to look like a homer. If you see a guy driving around London, ON with a Flames flag on his car, wave, coz it's me!

I couldn't believe that wasn't called. I don't think it mattered at all.. the way the Flames were playing for the last 35 minutes of yesterday's game, they could have had a 2 man advantage and not been able to score. Their special teams are just killing them, which I suppose isn't too surprising, as Vancouver is by far the more skilled team. I still think the Flames can win the series, though.

Cheers,

Mike

It's in Detroit, but I'm really tempted to go to this one. Living in London, Comerica is just as close as the Skydome.

I'll be going to all 3 games with friends from Windsor (bauxites in training). If anyone wants to join us they're more than welcome, drop me an email.

Before Thursday's game the Tigers are also holding a job fair for their front office, at 10:45 am, in case anyone's interested. Who knows what kind of crazy trouble you could get into around there?! In fact that's probably how they signed Fernando Vina, some newly hired student with access to agents' phone numbers!

I'm going to be on York University's CHRY radio with Jon Levett shortly (12:15) to talk some baseball. Their "listen live" link isn't working for me, but it's 105.5 FM in the GTA.

Did anyone catch Craig's radio gig yesterday?

HIJACK

If you were J.P. Ricciardi, would you claim Jack Cust off waivers and farm out Simon Pond?

I vote no, but it's an intriguing possibility.

Coach, I'll be listening.

My interview went really well, they asked great questions and I did pretty well I think. They aretalking about having me back on "next semester".

http://economics.about.com
If you were J.P. Ricciardi, would you claim Jack Cust off waivers and farm out Simon Pond?

I vote no, but it's an intriguing possibility.

I'd rather send a reliever to AAA (seeing as there's a bazillion of them), but other than A-Lo, I don't think you can without losing someone.

How about trying to sneak Douglass down on waivers? Now that the Jays have him and Nakamura, Douglass seems a little redundant. The Jays would probably lose Douglass, so the question becomes: Who would you rather have: Cust or Douglass? I think I'd rather have Douglass since Cust can't field at all, but it's pretty close.

Cheers,

Mike

http://economics.about.com
The other thing I was going to mention but forgot:

The Jays already have a glut of players who can't hit lefties. So Cust would be quite redundant in that regard.

Cheers,

Mike

I would. Pond's a great story and all, but he doesn't have nearly the offensive upside as Cust. Cust has shown the ability to hit for average, power and get on base at outstanding rates. He almost certainly will be an above average major league hitter, even as a DH. Pond doesn't have a whole lot of AAA experience and it probably wouldn't hurt to be getting some regular at-bats in Syracuse right now if he wants to be a regular in the majors. He's got all his option years still. If Cust is available, I don't see any reason not to give him a shot, even if it's only for a few weeks. If he works out we've got a potential offensive star, and if he tanks maybe he even makes it through waivers the next time.

However, I expect him to be traded before the O's try putting him on waivers. Is it 10 or 15 days the O's have before making a decision on a player DFA'd? I can't recall off the top of my head.

It's all about PR. If the Jays send Pond down "because he needs to play every day... and GO FOR GOLD IN ATHENS....," then taking a flyer on Cust is well worth it, IMO.

I like the way Steve Z thinks!

I'm in the middle on this one. I don't think Cust will hit for a great average in the majors, but he's got the big-time pop and he has enough plate discipline to draw a goodly number of walks. He is unquestionably a better hitter than Pond.

The real issue in my mind is role. Would Cust accept the role of pinch-hitter/occasional starter and thrive in it? If so, you've got a potential plan B should Delgado depart at the end of the season. However, for most young players, this is not the best way to break in, and from what I've read of Cust, it doesn't seem likely to be the best approach with him.

Now if Delgado or Phelps or Johnson or Catalanotto were injured, I'd be interested.

pro: Cust is only 24, and he's got great power potential, and a great batting eye
con: Cust may actually be too passive at the plate, letting many hittable pitches go.
con: Cust can't field. At all.
con: Pond deserves a shot, and can actually field a little
con: According to Moffatt, Cust can't hit lefties.

However, the Dave Berg fascination is starting to look a little dumb to me. If one assumes that Gomez can play a little 2B now and again, then why is Berg even needed? IMO, that's where the extra roster slot is being wasted.

One last thing.

Has it occurred to the Orioles that David Segui is a sunk cost?

I don't think it's worth risking Cust in order to keep Segui in the majors.

Designate Segui for assignment and send him to the minors. With the amount of money Segui has at stake, there's no way he would refuse the assignment. Or if they don't want to do that, just release him (a la Derek Bell).

http://economics.about.com
However, the Dave Berg fascination is starting to look a little dumb to me. If one assumes that Gomez can play a little 2B now and again, then why is Berg even needed? IMO, that's where the extra roster slot is being wasted.

Agreed. I'd love to see one less middle infielder and one less reliever. That'd open up two bench spots. Ideally you'd want one to go to someone who can catch in a pinch. Having both Pond, Cust and say, Hermansen might be overkill, but it'd be interesting. I think that'd help the Jays win more games than Dave Berg and a 12th pitcher ever could.

Cheers,

Mike

Is Dave Berg tradeable, though, making $700,000 or whatever? Thoughts?

I would rather have Berg, who is the emergency catcher, and Cust (or Hermansen) and dump a pitcher, but we'd all rather have that.

In the end, Jack Cust and Simon Pond play the same position - left-handed bat. Cust, at this point, probably plays that position better. But Pond is a hard worker (in spades - he's been woking out Japanese-style with Brian Butterfield, taking hundreds of balls a day at afternoon fielding practice) who has been demonstrating improvement, and Cust is an unknown quantity in terms of work ethic, who's been travelling sideways. Pond can also play third base if Hinske gets hurt, and is playing first base now as well.

Also, it's not really fair to Jack Cust to claim him, only to bury him on the bench and give his job to Gabe Gross in three months anyway.

I don't think it's worth risking Cust in order to keep Segui in the majors.

I don't think the O's see it that way, but rather see Cust as free talent, to be frank. And I tend to agree - I think Cust will pass through waivers.

http://economics.about.com
I don't think the O's see it that way, but rather see Cust as free talent, to be frank. And I tend to agree - I think Cust will pass through waivers.

You don't think the Tigers will grab him? What about the A's?

Cheers,

Mike

RE: Cust. 3-year splits (which are his career splits as well):
vs. LHP .250/.250/.313 (16 ABs)
vs. RHP .218/.342/.403 (124 ABs)

Sixteen PA's vs. lefties, in fact. Saying Jack Cust can't hit lefties is like saying Chris Woodward can't hit anything.

But the whole Dave Berg thing confuses me, too. Wouldn't Hermanson have fit better on this team? Berg was redundant when the Jays got Bordick last year, especially when Hinske got hurt and they called up Clark. The only thing Berg has done this season (I know, sample size) is pinch-run for Josh Phelps. Come on, I could run for Phelps.

http://premium.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2760
COMN for Will Carroll's team health report on the Jays. Lots and lots of green lights. Is that like the SI cover jinx?

http://economics.about.com
Sixteen PA's vs. lefties, in fact. Saying Jack Cust can't hit lefties is like saying Chris Woodward can't hit anything.

My statement wasn't based on his stats, moreso on the fact that his managers seem to go out of the way to keep him away from lefties. It'd be nice to have his minor league splits, but with the limited information we have, I'm willing to assume that his managers know a lot more about him than we do.

Cheers,

Mike

I don't think the Tigers or A's will grab him, no. The A's didn't have a spot for Graham Koonce, and I don't think they have one for Cust either.

The Tigers might take him because of the "fortuitous" (for Cust, anyway) appearance of Dmitri Young on the DL. But I don't think the Tigers have a spot for him and they would be leery of the PR situation ("isn't that the guy who fell down twice?"). They are the best fit and could use the extra talent.

woking out Japanese-style

That's a pretty good typo, Craig.

the only thing I DO know about Cust, is that given his exploits here and other places... he should be DH'ing somewhere... I could think of a number of teams that could stand to field a DH with his potential even if the jays may not be one of them given their needs vs. what Cust brings to the table...

My 25-second Jack Cust rant:

Ho-hum. A one-tool AAAA-type player with major holes in his swing. Give Pond 2-3 take signs per at-bat and you've got a more motivated Cust already. Cust is a kinder, gentler Jeremy Giambi. He's 45% of the offence and 0% of the defence of Nick Johnson.

Like mainland China becoming the Next Great Consumption Market for foreign goods -- which has been its status in the eyes of mercantilists for over a century -- Cust's Really Big Year is always right around the corner.

Like mainland China becoming the Next Great Consumption Market for foreign goods -- which has been its status in the eyes of mercantilists for over a century

What a super metaphor. Nothing like highbrow baseball fans...

I think the real problem is that we can never know the Cust-an-sich, just the phenomenal Cust.

I think the real problem is that we can never know the Cust-an-sich, just the phenomenal Cust

I'm not so sure the noumenal Cust is any better as a ballplayer, but I think this isn't quite right. If I might take this opportunity to provide a gloss on Kant's Critique...

Clearly the Jack Cust of our experience (the phenomenal Cust) the the Jack Cust of abstract reason (the noumenal Cust, Cust-an-sich, what have you) are the same individual - they're both Jack Cust. I don't think that we should fall into the trap of seeing the phenomenal Cust and the noumenal Cust as different entities. Kant avoids this, and I think we should too. The difference between the phenomenal and the noumenal Cust is the perspective with which Cust is perceived.

So if Andrew has truly identified the "problem" with Cust, it is a problem of perception rather than a problem with the ballplayer. But I do not think this is right. The problem does lie in the thing itself as well as in our sense experience of it... Cust falls down on the bases and botches plays in the field because he's a lousy baserunner and fielder, not because he has made some misplays.

What I think Andrew is identifying is that the noumenal Cust has value to us. There is, in an abstract sense, value in Cust's performances. That is, we can in an abstract way reason from what Cust can accomplish on the field and see that he is adding value to his team. However, in the raw world of sense phenomena, we see that Cust does no such thing. Cust's misplays, screwups, poor decisions and other assorted gaffes are all present in the noumenal realm and their value is added into the analysis - but from the phenomenal perspective (the only one which we are truly able to understand) they gain an importance grossly larger than they have in the noumenal world. Our perception of the error is far more negative than our abstract analysis of the error (or, if you will, the error-in-itself).

But this doesn't have anything to do with Jack Cust; it has to do with what he produces. In other words, it is not the phenomenal vs. noumenal distinction of Cust that bothers us, but the phenomenal vs. noumenal distinction of a Jack Cust performance. When Jack Cust goes 1-for-3 with a double, a walk and an error, the Cust problem is not the phenomenal Cust, it's the phenomenal error.

Please take that last post as tongue-in-cheek by the way.

Between Phelps and John-Ford Griffin, there's no need for another up and comping DH type. Cust has been few more than one organization now, as everyone continues to drool at his hitting peripherals...yet he sticks no where. Sounds to me like another Ruben Rivera (without the speed and arm, of course) can't miss type.

Cust has been few more than one organization now,

Sorry. That should read: Cust has been through more than one organization now.

Couple of differences between Cust and Koonce. Cust is younger (25) than Koonce (28). Koonce can actually play first base, though with the same ability as a giraffe on crutches, whereas Cust is actually a frozen statue out there.

On the other hand, I've never understood the O's obsession with David Segui, bloated locked-in contract or not. He's a homeless man's Erubiel Durazo (and the original, while OK, is not Jim Thome, or even Jim Thome lite), with a gifted glove at first base, or at least he used to a smooth defender, but it's hard to use the glove when you can't stay healthy. Cust may in fact be Jeremy Giambi II -- I've not heard much of Cust's attitude -- but he at least deserves a shot over Segui. Heck, I deserve a shot over Segui. I switch-hit, I play a passable three infield positions, and I've got warningtractastic power. I'm probably not as good-looking as Segui, but who's counting?

Do we have our own version of the Primeys? If so, Craig's an early 2004 contender with the Kant/Cust piece!

I'd second Steve Z's nomination, if only I understood a word of Craig's post. What part didn't I understand, you ask? Everything after "I'm not so sure ... "

It's rough being a dumb baseball fan on a smart baseball fan's Web site. Hey, now I know what Mick goes through on a daily basis!

http://economics.about.com
I'd second Steve Z's nomination, if only I understood a word of Craig's post.

It's because it was sheer gibberish. It didn't make sense at all.

Unless he can express those ideas using analytic geometry and set theory, I'm not interested.

Mike, are you suggesting that I drop my busy schedule to write Principia Custica? I don't have that kind of time right yet.

are you suggesting that I drop my busy schedule to write Principia Custica?

I read your post and I thought you were writing the Principia Discordia. I've read Kant and your post didn't make a lick of sense to me.

This is the first chance I've had to read this thread today, and I'm shocked that there's so little discussion of R-Griff's column.

I think it's a great piece. His facts are correct, his interpretations are sound, and his tone is respectful. He even goes so far as to write:

Speier's right. It's usually in the way the ball bounces, not who's on the mound. It matters little that 24 hours earlier, de los Santos struck out Ortiz. That's not a big enough sample size [emphasis added] to make determinations that could drain your pen of available arms heading to extra frames.

Sample size! Has Griffin joined the ZLC?

Phillies lost again today and couldn't score any runs. Fans were booing at the opening of the new park.

The Bowa deathwatch has officially started.

Hijack.

Which prospect woudl you rather have in a keeper fantasy league? 15 player minors. I'm a deepest at pitcher, but that doesn't concern my that much. It's the last round, so I'm a bit more tempted for a high-risk/high-reward prospect

Adam Peterson
Pro: Closer in waiting apparently, close to the bigs, projects for nice strikeouts
Con: Minor league relieivers are no sure thing, limited upside compared to others

Jason Arnold
Pro: Used to be thought of highly as a prospect, looked good in the spring and has apparently fixed the arm-angle troubles
Con: People seem to project him as a back-end starter, if he stalls this year he could get lost in the shuffle

Vito
Pro: Triple Crown, looks awesome in Dunedin so far, he can rake
Con: Small sample size (one season + a few at-bats), short-season triple crowns don't mean a lot, if I wanted a sleeper offensive prospect might Balantien on Seattle not be a better choice?

Josh Banks
Pro: Projected first rounder if he hadn't had blister problem, I could see a big-time season coming for him, big strikeout totals
Cons: A ways away, doesn't appear on many prospect lists

Or I could take another sleeper prospect, if there are any recommendations, although I'm leaning towards a Jay, possibly Banks.

Any recommendations appreciated, espeically before 7 PM.

Thomas, I would go with Peterson or Rosario. Peterson could have a major role in the bullpen and all reporst on Rosario have him moving up very quick.

Thomas: I'd go Banks myself (of the guys you listed...i assume others better than those are already gone)

RE: Cust. Not necessarily advocating going after him but it's worth noting that the O's were scouting Berg a couple of weeks ago...a trade could probably be doen easily enough and would save us a few hundred K.

As to a team needing him in the AL, I'd sugest that the Rays are a team prone to pick up this sort of guys (look at all the vtes they ran through ST...Tatis and such) and I would agree that the A's might be intrested. Despite poor D it's not inconcivable that DePodesta could be intruiged and the Pirates are not adverse to making a qestionable move now and again.

Bonds just hit #660. 3-2 letter-high fastball from Matt Kinney, into the water.

Thanks. Anymore advice is still welcome.

I grabbed Rosario a couple of rounds ago. Hill, Adams, Bush, Quiroz, Rios, Gross, League, Pleiness and McGowan are also gone, from the Jays point of view.

Thanks. Anymore advice is still welcome.


I try to get power hitters (both college and HS) from the first few rounds of the last two drafts. I'll only take a pitcher or speed player if they look truly special. With that in mind any of the following are solid bets:

Michael Aubrey (cle)
Chris Lubanski (kc)
Matt Moses (min)
Ryan Sweeney (chi)
Nick Swisher (oak)
Brian Anderson (chi)
Jason Cooper (cle)
Mitch Maier (kc)
Vince Sinisi (tex)
Brandon Wood (ana)
Val Majewski (bal)
Matt Murton (bos)
David Murphy (bos)
Eric Duncan (ny)
Nick Markakis (bal)
Brent Clevlen (det)
Jeremy Cleveland (tex)

I also have a soft spot for the "moneyball" players who were considered such a big bust in 2003. I have a hunch a few of them will break through this season.

Brant Colamarino
Mark Teahen
John McCurdy

Thomas, from that list, I'd go with Josh Banks. Like I said sometime ago, he could be Josh Beckett or he could be Josh Towers. That sounds like the type of guy you're after.

Kant/Cust- was that the first baseball/philosophy mash-up? The purveyors of the Grey Album better watch out, cuz we're coming to get ya.

http://www.foxsports.com/content/view?contentId=2311880
From Rosenthal's latest (COMN):

The Orioles are taking an anti-Tony La Russa approach with their bullpen, going with their best arms instead of basing their decisions on matchups. LHP B.J. Ryan, the setup man, could close if Jorge Julio falters. New manager Lee Mazzilli summoned RHP Rodrigo Lopez to face Boston's lefthanded-hitting Johnny Damon on opening night, then allowed Ryan to pitch to righthanders Ellis Burks, Manny Ramirez and Kevin Millar later in the series. "The whole idea is to get away from the bullpen- matchup thing that came on about 20 years ago," Orioles VP Mike Flanagan says. . . .

All of the above save Wood and Duncan, including 3 by me. I guess I'll probably go Wood (as I have no SS prospects) then Banks. Thanks.

Kant/Cust- was that the first baseball/philosophy mash-up?

no:
http://www.opencourtbooks.com/books_n/baseball.htm

Haven't read this, but thumbed through and it looks fun. In the vein of these "Simpsons and Philsophy" "Lord of the Rings and Philosophy" "Scrapbooking and Philosophy" books...

Heck, I deserve a shot over Segui. I switch-hit, I play a passable three infield positions, and I've got warningtractastic power. I'm probably not as good-looking as Segui, but who's counting?
Heck it sounds like you should have made the A's again this year.;)

We don't often hear about the commissioner's office rejecting a transaction, but it happened to Beatagan today.

Wow, don't see that happen very often; interesting that they would catch something like that, and it makes me wonder how many little things like that could/do slip through the cracks.

And the subtitle was quite humerous as well: "Pitcher to be remain in Ottawa until April 17" Are we conjugating now from French or what? :)

If the Rays were made aware of the error the day Bedard pitched (and the Orioles won) on Saturady, they could have filed an official protest (and won, perhaps). Do they have any recourse now? Have there been any successful protests in the (recent) history of baseball?

It's good to know that the Commissioner's office knows where to draw the line and clamp down on flagrant violations of the rules like this one, but also have enough human touch to be lenient and allow trifling violations like the A-Rod trade to go through, in the best interests of the game.

Steve, I think they would have recourse, yes, but I don't know what the precedent is. Unfortunately, these rules (unlike the CBA) don't exist in public domain format, so we just don't know what the rules are.

Jonny, what was the rules issue with A-Rod again? Was it just the restructured contract (a CBA matter and not a league issue), or were there other league rules that needed to be bent?

I am sure, in this instance, that the O's would have received the OK if they had said "we made a mistake on Bedard" before they tried to get away with it. Asking first is alway a good idea...

http://newyork.yankees.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/tex/news/tex_news.jsp?ymd=20040216&content_id=637375&vkey=news_tex&fext=.jsp
You're calling my bluff a bit here... my understanding is that the Commissioner can veto any trade that involves more than a certain amount of money changing hands, and it's a relatively tiny amount like 1 or 2 million. But it's not necessarily a rule per se, more a "provision". My issue is that if ever there was a time to invoke it, here it was.

Here's Bud's own BS on the matter (COMN for full article):

"I am very concerned about the large amount of cash consideration involved in the transaction, and the length of time over which the cash is being paid," Selig said in a statement released Monday. "I want to make it abundantly clear to all clubs that I will not allow cash transfers of this magnitude to become the norm.

"However, given the unique circumstances, including the size, length and complexity of Mr. Rodriguez's contract and the quality of the talent moving in both directions, I have decided to approve the transaction."

WOW... I'm impressed. I've never seen a baseball blog where people are familiar with principia discordia... As such, I'm sure you're also familiar with the book/church of the subgenius.

Quite precisely, in comparing these two phenomena we see that discordia is a religion disguised as a joke while the subgenius is a joke disguised as a religion. Of course, we can interject that baseball is the ultimate religion. Quite truthfully, my high school history teacher, a walking encyclopedia of a man used to say that life was a microcosm of baseball and be quick to reply 'he thinks I am joking' at any snickering... Obviously, the greatest rock band of all time were firm supporters of the subgenius and that is of course d-e-v-o... Quite righteous was the smart patrol.