Things can only get better, couldn't agree more Mike.

Things can only get better, couldn't agree more Mike.

The song Things Can Only Get Better by Howard Jones did seem appropriate this morning. You win 100 million points, a picture of a cuttlefish (to be given later), and this picture of a frog:



Anyone know what kind of frog that is? I'd love to have one as a pet.

There's no game tomorrow. The Jays start a home series against the Mariners tomorrow.

Is that a Zen thing, or are simply not looking forward to the game?

Is that a Zen thing, or are simply not looking forward to the game?

LOL. No, I'm just an idiot. Thanks. :)

I have plans to go to the Wednesday game and am actually excited it's to be Towers. He's fun to watch: "Bulldog" Towers is fitting, he's Hershiserian, with curses. Towers is a draw for me. So Miller has bloody tatoos, so what? That's artificial personality.

LEW FORD and JUAN PIERRE for extra man.

http://www.petinfo4u.com/pacman.htm
Anyone know what kind of frog that is? I'd love to have one as a pet.

Not sure what type of frog that is, but I get the sense that you sort of like video games. COMN for a frog that might be more to your liking.

I was listening on the radio yesterday while cleaning out a room, and I actually stood up and shouted "O-Dog draws the walk!" at the top of my lungs. Man...thatclose.

When's Lilly's next home start? Should we replace the Roosevelts with Stars? Or put Roosevelt in a star?

You know who that frog looks like? Remember that ugly bastard who used to throw out of the Oakland bullpen in their late-80s heyday? The thick glasses, reptilian face?

Eric Plunk! The frog is Eric Plunk.

Nice.. Pacman frogs! Never heard of those.

I don't know if I'd like a pet that "do not require a lot of space because they rarely move." I've already got cats. :)

It sure gets slow here when Richard Griffin or somebody doesn't write a bombastic column.

I must have missed the column today that talks about how the Jays playing small ball in the early innings yesterday might have cost them a chance to win the game. Two runners were thrown out in the early going. Maybe that story is being saved for tomorrows paper.

It sure gets slow here when Richard Griffin or somebody doesn't write a bombastic column.

Allright, let's turn it up then.

Here's my question. Every year at the All Star break i hear someone say that the one player per team rule should be eliminated. What do most people think?
Personally I think it's a good rule. I always love to see how the Jays and Expos rep is going to do.

It's an interesting issue, Gerry. One of the difficulties about not playing small ball at all is losing the ability to adapt. It is apparently so difficult to hit a home run in Hiram Bithorn v. 2004 that small ball makes sense; in a way, a trip to Puerto Rico this year is much like time travel to the deadball era.

That said, if players aren't practising small ball skills, they lose them, and it makes no sense to start using them in the middle of the season.

I am generally in favour of the practice and occasional use of small ball skills in games to:

a. introduce the element of surprise, and
b. maintain the skill so that it can be used if the context requires.

Absolutely, keep the rule. Living near Seattle for years, when that franchise was nowhere, it was so important for them to have an Alvin Davis, Mark Langston, or Harold Reynolds in the game. The M's wouldn't have have seemed to exist at all were it not for equal representation. Also, with Seattle so far removed from any other Major League city, there would have been tremendous alienation if they went decades without an All-Star rep. I would be in favour of reducing the roster sizes though. 12 pitchers for one game is ridiculous. How about having a maximum of two players from each team represented in the reserves. It's fair because arguably both leagues will have bad teams to choose reps from.

What I'm sick of hearing about is all the bitching about interleague play, how it's not fair that the Mets have to face the Yankees twice and someone else gets the Royals. Well, if any Major League team thinks they caught a break by playing the KC Royals for a weekend series, then they will surely be swept by the Royals. Major League teams are Major League teams and you had always better respect your competition or you WILL lose. The Mets swept the Yankees this weekend, by the way.

I don't mind the 1-per-team rule for the All Star game, but it doesn't seem to make sense if the outcome of the game determines who gets home field advantage in the World Series.
In my mind, it should either be an exhibition using the current selection process OR a meaningful game where the best players are selected. I don't think MLB should be trying to have it both ways.

I really don't think the current All Star voting system should be allowed... Neither Jeter nor Giambi deserve to be in the starting lineup. Michael Young is having a much better season at short, heck so is Valentin in Chicago and Guillen in Detroit. Almost any first baseman is having a better season than Giambi.

For one thing the voting is unfair because obviously large market teams/cities are going to have more votes.

And another thing, the average person who comes to a game has no idea who 90 per cent of these players are... and many of those people who are voting aren't even going to watch the All Star game that they're voting for.

I haven't watched the All Star game in years for the simply reason that I can't stand to see the undeserving players playing. The game should reward people who have actually played WELL.

While I'm on voting beefs, what's up with the Gold Glove awards? How come players with the best range/fielding percentage don't always win the awards? It has way more to do with their hitting ability and whether they've won the award before than it should.

it doesn't seem to make sense if the outcome of the game determines who gets home field advantage in the World Series.

But alternating home field advantage from year to year has no meaning either. It's just as arbitrary to have the all-star game decide the home-field advantage as whether the year is an odd or even number. And it's a lot more fun: Hank Blalock anyone?

All-Star voting could be just a clever way to hype the game months in advance. If there is a huge problem with the voting often the media helps out to correct the results, eg. Carlos Delgado last year. Giambi was killing him in the early returns and ESPN, USA Today went to bat for Carlos and he ended up pulling off the start. This year, looking at the list of AL firstbasemen, there was no clear choice, so voters went with the most famous. That's why Soriano was the leading vote getter: he was the overwhelmingly obvious choice for that position.

In my mind, it should either be an exhibition using the current selection process OR a meaningful game where the best players are selected. I don't think MLB should be trying to have it both ways.


This brings up an interesting question in my mind. Since the starters are voted in by the fans, wouldn't it be possible to stuff the ballot box for the other side with all the *worst* players on the ballot? Granted it would be nearly impossible to pull off, but I dont like the idea that it's a theoretical possibility in a game that now has some meaning.

For one thing the voting is unfair because obviously large market teams/cities are going to have more votes.

You could make the argument that larger market fans (say in Chicago, NY, LA where they see both the NL and AL), are more sophisticated than smaller-market fans. Small-market fans could be more likely to be the 'homers' and less familiar with other teams and vote for either their own players only or famous names.

It may not have been New Yorkers who put Giambi in the All-Star game. The Yankee fans I've heard of wouldn't dream of making him All-Star. It could have been all those Marlin fans who have just heard of the guy.

I voted for Lew Ford and Aramis Ramirez.

Lew Ford was my guy too. I would have voted Matsui if there had not been so many Yankees in the game already.

It's just as arbitrary to have the all-star game decide the home-field advantage as whether the year is an odd or even number.

I don't know about that.
In the old system, it's a guarantee that home field advantage will alternate between leagues. With the new system, one league could conceivably win it every year.
If the goal is to have each team care about the outcome, why not make the best players available? I'm sure Joe Torre enjoys the chance to manage his way to home field advantage rather than have it assigned to the National League. Doesn't it make sense that he'd rather have the best players to do it with?

wouldn't it be possible to stuff the ballot box for the other side with all the *worst* players on the ballot? Granted it would be nearly impossible to pull off, but I dont like the idea that it's a theoretical possibility in a game that now has some meaning.

That would also be possible for any election, any voting process. By extention, you would have to argue that the only *fair* way to have a PM selected would be to have one appointed by the senate because voters could conceivably stuff the ballot boxes with the guy they see as the worst possible candidate.

Doesn't it make sense that he'd rather have the best players to do it with?

Well, that's why he gets to pick all the reserves. And it's not like the 8 voted-in starters *suck*. If they do, you just pull them after two innings and put your guy in. Both managers have to deal with the same process, so it's fair.

If the fear is that the small-market fans are voting for just big names maybe at the ballparks they should restrict you to only being able to vote for your league. One is much more likely to be more aware of the happenings in one's own league. Admittedly this does somewhat restrict fans who do not live in their favourite teams hometown (although it will have the advantage of alienating yankee fans in Toronto, hehehe). But i guess if you area allowed to vote for both online (there is no way to restrict it online), this would make up for it.

although it will have the advantage of alienating yankee fans in Toronto

How so?

Alienating yankee fans in Toronto, wow I am stupid. I guess thats what happens when you are looking over your shoulder for your boss.

People outside of New York can stand the Yankees?

People outside of New York can stand the Yankees?

They're like the Montreal Canadiens. Equally hated and loved around North America. The Yankees, though, are only loved in Asia and I would guess South America as well.

And it's not like the 8 voted-in starters *suck*.

Well no, you're still going to have talented teams, no doubt.
It just strikes me as odd that the league is telling the managers that they should be trying to win, but then requiring them to select a Mike Williams or a Randy Winn to do it.

Meh.

Except the Canadiens have become the little team that could, a less successful Calgary if you will, that seem to have as many injuries every year as the Jays have had this year. Cheering for the yankees is like cheering for Goliath from my perspective. And this from a leaf fan.

wouldn't it be possible to stuff the ballot box for the other side with all the *worst* players on the ballot? Granted it would be nearly impossible to pull off, but I dont like the idea that it's a theoretical possibility in a game that now has some meaning.

That would also be possible for any election, any voting process. By extention, you would have to argue that the only *fair* way to have a PM selected would be to have one appointed by the senate because voters could conceivably stuff the ballot boxes with the guy they see as the worst possible candidate.

Actually Keith, I disagree...
I think this is an interesting premise..

If the Yankees fans, voted for all the best AL players, and all the worst NL players, then presumably they could increase their chances of hosting 4 World Series games.

the thing is with dilution, voting for the worst NL players would be wasted votes, you'd have to vote for the worst possible guy that could still get in if he got the extra votes..

Heck.. half the time that guy is the guy that gets in anyway, come to think of it.

If the Yankees fans, voted for all the best AL players, and all the worst NL players, then presumably they could increase their chances of hosting 4 World Series games.

Assuming of course that MLB would allow that outcome. Which they wouldn't. If that happened, they'd just throw out the results and appoint their own guys. It's happened before.

oh, I agree with you Moffat..

but the thought was astute..
we certainly don't give the Liberal Candidates a vote in the Conservative Leadership race, or they'd pick the guy they thought they could beat...

oh.. maybe we did that too?

No, but there's nothing stopping individual voters who normally support the Liberals from taking out Conservative Party memberships and voting in the leadership race.

I've always thought the fans did a much better job selecting all-stars than the managers (and whoever else has input now). The fans generally pick established players - the stars. And I think that's right - the all-star game should be for the star players, regardless of whether they have put up the best numbers or not in the current half-season.

Managers sometimes pick guys like Jerry Mumphrey, guys who have had a good first half but are nothing more than average ballplayers. Ted Lilly isn't an all-star, he's just a slightly above average pitcher.

When you have Pedro or Halladay to choose from, selecting Lilly is just plain stupid.

Guys like Belliard and Harvey do not belong on an all-star team. The selection of Harvey instead of the established Mike Sweeney is a head-scratcher. Hudson and Boone are both better players than Belliard, and since Sabathia is on the team the one-per team rule doesn't apply to the Belliard selection.

Craig Burley and I discussed strategic voting last season. The idea being to vote for guys who were not the best but were popular enough to get elected in the enemy league. To do that, draw up a list of overrated players and vote for them. If you could get all the AL fans to agree on who to promote, you'd have a great chance of pulling it off and no one would think it was rigged.

It's completely unrealistic in practice, of course.

A propos of Moffatt's point, many Liberals and New Democrats took out membership in the former Progressive Conservative party in order to vote for David Orchard in the leadership race. Fat lot of good that did, huh?

Managers sometimes pick guys like Jerry Mumphrey

Never could figure that one out. Sure, they needed an Astro, but why not Jose Cruz Sr. instead of Mumphrey? They even both played the outfield!

What about The Year of Joe Oliver? 1990: Cincinatti fans stuff the box to get Oliver into the game. He wins MVP. Reds to go the World Series. Oliver hits grand slam in Game One, wins MVP.

I hope my facts are correct.

Anyways: we're talking about ONE All-Star game that could potentially give ONE more home game to ONE Major League team, whose manager most likely will not be managing that All-Star game. So the system is not perfect and it doesn't need to be perfect. But it is pretty good. And more fun. I loved last summer's All-Star game and can't wait for this one. 'This One Counts' is gimmicky, but I like it. All-Star games have been very boring in the recent past. 'This One Counts' alleviates that.

Check out other sports: the NHL All-Star game is a disaster, same with the NBA, all the 'real' stars want the days off instead and refuse to go. Baseball has a good thing going where the players, coaches and fans are all mostly into it. Even the biggest grump in MLB (Bonds) has fun at the All-Star festivities.

Chad Hermanson is off the DL; can we expect him in Toronto soon?

What about The Year of Joe Oliver? 1990: Cincinatti fans stuff the box to get Oliver into the game. He wins MVP. Reds to go the World Series. Oliver hits grand slam in Game One, wins MVP.

You must have been confusing Oliver with someone else. He was never in an All-Star game and never elected MVP of anything in the bigs. He didn't hit any post-season homers for the Reds in 1990.

Hermanson stunk in his first attempt with the Jays this season and he has stunk his entire career so I doubt we will see him soon. I'd rather see Anthony Sanders get a call up, or JF Griffin (Phelps with less power) for the matter. Maybe the Jays should look at Kerry Robinson who was designated after Darren Bragg was acquired by the Padres from the Yankees (AAA affiliate). He can play all three outfield spots and isn't a bad pinch hitter.

Except the Canadiens have become the little team that could, a less successful Calgary if you will, that seem to have as many injuries every year as the Jays have had this year. Cheering for the yankees is like cheering for Goliath from my perspective. And this from a leaf fan.

Yes, Wunderbat, I should have been more specific. I was speaking of the Canadiens who were the mighty team that rocked, they carried that aura well into the 90s, but agreed, they've lost some lustre. I remember going to Canuck home games in the 80s when the Canadiens were playing with scalped tickets going for $300 and a deafening roar when either the Home team or Visitors scored: loads of 'ze hockey sveatah' around.

The Yankees are that team now. And as much of a moron that Joe Morgan is, thinking about it I have to agree that elite teams add a lot to a sport. When you play the Yankees it's not like playing the White Sox, everyone feels it. An elite team makes all the other teams play harder. I suppose we'd be hapless and confused if all 6 baseball divisions were like the AL or NL Central.

A few champagne teams aren't so bad.

In the 80s I remember listening to broadcasters go on about the Dodgers with the Koufaxes and the Yankees with the Mantles and thought that my current baseball generation has no elite team. Then the Yankee dynasty emerged and I'm sure decades from now people will talk about Jeter, Riviera, Bernie Williams, A-Rod, these great Yankee teams. Though, I think playing for the Yankees today means less than playing for them in the 60s. Don Larsen and Lou Gehrig were great World Champions. But Clemens, Wells and potentially A-Rod are just hired help in another Yankee championship. A-Rod would have far more glory if you could be a champion in Texas.

Texas: how many voters were close to selecting an all-Texas All-Star lineup? Arguably, they're all suitable all-stars.

make that an all-Texas All-Star INFIELD.

It's quite possible that with Tosca on the coaching staff, he had a lot of input into who would go to the All-Star game. Given Doc is just coming off a stint on the DL they don't want to fool with his pitching schedule. So they give the confidence boost to Ted instead.

So questionable circumstances aside, JP traded for an All-Star pitcher and has him signed one more year at reasonable dollars. Not bad.

It wasn't Joe Oliver I was thinking of. It was Terry Steinbach. From Baseball Library:

Ballot stuffing in Oakland and a weak crop of AL catchers made the A's Terry Steinbach a starter in 1987 (he was batting .218 at the time), but Steinbach became the hero of the game, winning the MVP award with a solo homer and two RBI.

I don't know where I got the Joe Oliver WS Grand Slam from. He was key in Game 1 offensively I remember...

And now my quick comments:

An ESPN writer said it best "Cheering for the Yankees is like cheering for the house in blackjack"

I would actually like to see all star choices limited, as in only 4 or 5 starters allowed per team.

This is Wunderbat's email "the_rickbottom@hotmail.com". He is the owner of the closet of scrubs. If you wish to see them next Doc start, please flood him with begging and groveling to try and convince him to let us use them. Im already doing it in person.

Should we consider a "welcome back Carlos" sign? We certainly need his bat back in the lineup.

I definitely agree with you, Keith Talent. Leagues need their perennial contenders as a measuring stick for the others. Plus, David wouldn't be so famous if he had beaten someone his own size. Just like Arizonain 2001, or Florida last year. However, it would be much easier to at least respect their team if they built another dynasty from within instead of only using their vast financial resources all the time. In that respect, part of me wishes that some team would emerge to be the NY Rangers, and make other owners wary of that kind of dealing. But the yankees keep getting away with it. I also wish Steinbrenner was more like his Seinfeld counterpart, just for a little more entertainment. But that is an issue for another time.

if they built another dynasty from within instead of only using their vast financial resources all the time

They wouldn't be the Yankees without Jeter, Posada, Bernie Williams, and formerly Andy Petite. They are the base of the dynasty.

part of me wishes that some team would emerge to be the NY Rangers

see: the NY Yankees of the 1980s. Don Mattingly was their lone home-grown star and they traded every prospect for immediate salary gain and potential immediate benefit with trades like: Jay Buhner for Ken Phelps; signing washed-up Blue Jays: Barfield, Key. Steve Sax! A rickety Wade Boggs. They gave a young Fred McGriff to Toronto for God knows who. This is all Steinbrenner though. Once he let his GM exercise patience with the prospects the dynasty came together. It's not just mad spending, though that's what some in the media would lead you to believe.

Since I knew that Jack Wilson was going to make the All-Star squad, I made a chart that compared his numbers with the O-Dog's.

The chart doesn't include yesterday's games.

Player	Age	POS	Fld%	RF	ZR	AVG	OBP	HR/600ABs	2B/600ABs	SB%
O.Hudson	26	2B	.978	5.70	.852	.280	.368	20	41	.75
J.Wilson	26	SS	.978	4.76	.860	.340	.359	13	38	.71

Now, I'm not the kind of person that believes that players should make all-star teams based on a half of a season, but Hudson's numbers are certainly comparable to "all-star" Jack Wilson. Even though Wilson's batting average is 60 points higher, Hudson still gets on base at a better rate. They have the same amount of homers, but Hudson did it in about 100 less at-bats. They both hit doubles at about the same rate.

Their defensive stats are pretty close, except for in Range Factor where Orlando blows Jack away.

Soooo, yeah. I don't really feel that either man should be on the all-star team, but if Jack Wilson was a consensus pick, than O-Dog deserved consideration.

This is a long way of saying that I agree with you Moffatt, If the all-star game is for the guys who have played the best as of late, the O-Dog is a solid choice.

Watching Speier and Adams yesterday reminded me of Uke's "grab a bat and kill this rally, Uke!" except it was "go out there and make sure the Expos win this game!" The Arson Squad strikes again.
Anyone seen "Master and Commander"? I think it's time for Tosca to grab a canonball and jump over the side; the guy is a Jonah.

Keith, I agree the yankees aren't the same without the talent you mentioned. However, this year's team moved away from the grooming ofones own talent that exemplified the organization, and that I respected in the 90's, to purchasing talent that seems to be the team in the 2000's. As well, it should be noted without their resources it would be much more difficult to keep those players on the team, just like the blue jays and the current delgado situation, and the expos of the nineties. I will admit that I thought this year's yankees were a case of mad spending simply because I thought the A-rod trade seemed to be a trade of a weakness at third for a weakness at second, and the many free agents they brought in. I also thought the Red Sox were a stronger team especially in the rotation. Now my biggest candidate for mad spender seems to be the Orioles. Hopefully they will be the lesson to the rest of the league.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=olney_buster&id=1834392
As for the Hudson not an all-star. I find it funny that he even got snubbed from ESPN's all-sub team. Apparently Mark bellhorn is a better choice. COMN.

Roy Halladay didn't even make the all-snub team.

Victor "I have no idea where this is going" Zambrano is apparantly better.

O-Dog got hosed.

O-Dog got hosed.

Blame Tosca.

Here's the conversation:

Torre: 'So Carlos, what about Orlando? Think he's second-string to Soriano? Tell me something about him...'

Little Napoleon: 'Orlando is a great lead-off hitter. No, he's a mediocre lead-off hitter. He's not a lead-off hitter. He was a lead-off hitter. He might be a lead-off hitter again... maybe. I don't think Dave Berg has ever been to Houston, and HE'S a leadoff hitter.'

Torre: 'I don't think we need to see Dave Berg. How about a pitcher?'

Little Napoleon: 'Terry Adams!'

Torre: 'How about a starting pitcher?'

Little Napoleon: 'Oh that's easy. Ted Lilly hasn't given up one walk or hit during any all-star break, ever. I can fax you the numbers.'

Torre: 'Done.'

Anyone seen "Master and Commander"? I think it's time for Tosca to grab a canonball and jump over the side; the guy is a Jonah.

I honestly don't know what to think about Tosca. Certainly, his bullpen management prompts a lot of head-scratching, and I don't understand why Josh Phelps isn't playing more, his recent struggles notwithstanding.
On the other hand, the team is playing near .500 ball despite having their four best hitters and (arguably) last year's MVP on the DL, plus losing the reigning Cy Young winner for two starts. The starting pitching has been very good. I'm not sure any other manager could do better, given the circumstances.
And here's the thing - given the anemic offense, *every* bullpen mistake gets magnified, every move that doesn't work out gets questioned, because the margin for error is so small. I also think that the lack of offense has a ripple effect on the everyone - the hitters start pressing (ie Hinske's at bat in the 6th yesterday), the pitchers think they have to be perfect.
I suspect that Tosca is hanging on by his fingernails right now. If the Jays gets Wells, Delgado and Cat back for the second half and still struggle, then I think he's done.

the team is playing near .500 ball

The Jays would have to go on a tear to get to .500, and then continue to play far better than they have been.

Agreed: Tosca is safely employed until it's seen what he does in the second half. If it's no good, he's gone in the off season: no question. JP will hire Ron Washington.

Now, I'm not the kind of person that believes that players should make all-star teams based on a half of a season, but Hudson's numbers are certainly comparable to "all-star" Jack Wilson. Even though Wilson's batting average is 60 points higher, Hudson still gets on base at a better rate. They have the same amount of homers, but Hudson did it in about 100 less at-bats. They both hit doubles at about the same rate.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Ryan, you omitted triples and SLG from your chart. A 50 point edge in SLG is pretty significant. You also can't compare ZR and RF across positions. You need to compare players to their peers at the same position:

Wilson RF: 4.78, 6th out of 28, low=3.99, high=5.10
Wilson ZR: .862, 10th out of 28, low=.786, high=.910
Orlando RF: 5.63, 2nd out of 19, low=4.27, high=5.68
Orlando ZR: .847, 4th out of 19, low=.743, high=.866

Defensively, Orlando is ahead of Wilson, but not by as much as you think.

Overall, Wilson is at .339/.358/.517 while Orlando is at .281/.373/.467. Convert things over to GPA ([(OBP*1.8) + SLG] / 4), and it's a dead heat:

Wilson: .290
Orlando: .285

There is also something to be said for staying healthy, which Hudson did not do this year.

I don't think Wilson deserves the sarcastic quotes you put around his all-star nomination.

I suspect that Tosca is hanging on by his fingernails right now. If the Jays gets Wells, Delgado and Cat back for the second half and still struggle, then I think he's done.

Paging Larry Dierker, paging Larry Dierker...

Wilson has been crap beforee this year. I'm amazed that people put so much stock in a half-year of numbers.

The Jays would have to go on a tear to get to .500, and then continue to play far better than they have been.

Well, yes. What I meant was, they've played nearly .500 ball since the injuries. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Of course, the Jays started the year, what 3-11 or something, despite playing Detroit 6 times, and that was with everyone healthy. And as soon as anyone looked like they were about to break out of their slump offensively, they'd get hurt.
If I were Eric Hinske, I'd be very worried right now.

Hey, maybe that's why Phelps isn't playing - Tosca's afraid that if starts to hit well, he'll end up getting run over by a bus.

Victor "I have no idea where this is going" Zambrano is apparantly better.

I have a recording of his post-game press interview after the beanball incident last year where he says, "What they gotta understand is that my balls, they got a lot of move."

I think that sums it up pretty well.

Meaning that Wilson has been only slightly better than Hudson.

Wilson has been slightly better than Hudson in terms of rate stats but Jack has played in significantly more games (Wilson has over 100 more plate appearances). That's the real reason why O-Dawg doesn't merit an All-Star spot - he's missed a good chunk of the season.

I have no problem with Jack Wilson as an All-Star. Yes, he was a horrible MLB player until this year but the guy has talent and I don't think he's playing much over his head. After all, he was a 318 career hitter in the minors, with a 450 SLG and his glove work has always been excellent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=list/worstallstars
WARNING: THIS IS A CROSS POST (it was applicable in the Lily thread but after reading this one it really belongs here).

ESPN's Page 2 outlines the 10 worst All-Star selections in history. I'll list them here but COMN for a description of Jeff Merron's case for each player.

10. Frankie Zak, Pirates (1944)
9. Jay Howell, A's (1987)
8. Tyler Green, Phillies (1995)
7. Eddie Smith, White Sox (1942)
6. Ellie Rodriguez, Royals (1969)
5. Roger Pavlik, Rangers (1996)
4. Scott Cooper, Red Sox (1993 and 1994)
3. Alfredo Griffin, Blue Jays (1984)
2. Billy Hunter, Browns (1953)
1. Mike Williams, Pirates (2003)

4. Scott Cooper, Red Sox (1993 and 1994)

More infamy for Cooper:

Though Boggs is they guy who was blocking Bagwell in 1990, it was the presence of Cooper in the organization that made the Red Sox feel it was ok to deal Jeff Bagwell...

Really, really wish the Jays had traded in the off-season for Ben Sheets (age 25; salary $2.4M), who beat the Cubs this afternoon (pitching line: 7 4 0 0 1 12). He's now 8-5, 2.42 ERA.

Of course, hindsight is 40-20, right? Or something like that.

Who do the Jays have that the Brewers would have taken for Sheets in the off-season?

Alex Rios and a bunch of other ex-Ash draft picks would have done the trick.

Alex Rios and a bunch of other ex-Ash draft picks would have done the trick.

You'd trade 6 years of Rios (3 of them at the major league minimum) plus MORE prospects for three years of Ben Sheets at arbitration prices?

Hmmm...although I'm not as high on Rios as others are and would seiously consider the deal, the question you asked was what would it take, not whether the deal should be made.

Hmmm...although I'm not as high on Rios as others are and would seiously consider the deal, the question you asked was what would it take, not whether the deal should be made.

Fair enough. And it's a reasonable deal for both sides, rather than the We should trade a bag of socks for Jarome Iginla deal suggestions you hear too much in the media. :)

If you were the Brewers, would you give up your best starter? I might, but it'd take an awful lot.

I think the Brewers might have been willing to trade him. Sheets was only average until this (his breakout) year. His pre-2004 MLB totals (courtesy of the Baseball Cube): 33-39, 4.43, 587 IP, 635 H, 161 BB, 421 K.

Alex Rios and a bunch of other ex-Ash draft picks would have done the trick.

You know this for a fact?

It had to happen eventually. Gagne blew a save against Arizona, ending the streak at 84.

It had to happen eventually. Gagne blew a save against Arizona, ending the streak at 84.

And it's a reasonable deal for both sides, rather than the We should trade a bag of socks for Jarome Iginla deal suggestions you hear too much in the media.

Substitute 'Darcy Tucker' for 'bag of socks' for a more realistic version of the onesided deals that are seriously proposed in the media.

I think the Brewers might have been willing to trade him. Sheets was only average until this (his breakout) year. His pre-2004 MLB totals (courtesy of the Baseball Cube): 33-39, 4.43, 587 IP, 635 H, 161 BB, 421 K.

Up until the end of 2003, Sheets looked like Chris Carpenter. Good, but far from great.

This past spring, if the Jays had offered them Rios in return for Sheets, they just might have gone for it. With the post-winterball Rios hype machine on overdrive, I don't think Ash and Melvin would have been able to resist.