Timmy does Giants a huge favor

Leave a comment

The talk earlier this winter was that Tim Lincecum might try to set a very expensive precedent. Few players have ever gone to arbitration with anything resembling his kind of track record, and none of them have had just two-plus years of service time. The closest comparable was Ryan Howard, who won an MVP award in his first full season in 2006 and then finished fifth in 2007. Eligible for arbitration for the first time as a super-two player, he asked for $10 million for the 2008 season and won his case.
Howard, though, even with his very impressive collection of hardware, wasn’t the NL’s best first baseman at the time. That was Albert Pujols, and Prince Fielder also had a superior season in 2007. Lance Berkman wasn’t far behind.
Lincecum, on the other hand, is the NL’s best pitcher. He was the obvious choice for Cy Young honors in 2008, and while it wasn’t so cut and dry last season, he won again in 2009. I can’t imagine even the strongest supporters of Chris Carpenter and Adam Wainwright would consider either a better bet than Lincecum for 2010.
So, it was pretty disappointing Friday to see Lincecum take a two-year, $23 million deal just prior to an arbitration hearing. Lincecum had asked for $13 million in his first of four years of arbitration eligibility, while the Giants submitted an $8 million figure.
Lincecum will receive $9 million this year and $14 million in 2011. Incredibly, he’s taking less than the $25 million that Howard received between his super-two year and the first season of a three-year, $54 million contract he received a year ago. Before agreeing to that deal, Howard asked for $18 million and was offered $14 million in his second arbitration year.
It really is hard to believe Lincecum would settle for such a modest pact. Sure, he’s set for life now, but just the $8 million that he was assured in 2010 would have set him up pretty well on its own. Plus, he could have invested some of it in an extravagant insurance policy that would have protected him against a catastrophic arm injury.
But that wasn’t his choice, and the Giants should consider themselves extremely fortunate. If Lincecum is willing to give up money now, it has to buoy their hopes that he’ll eventually be amenable to a deal that will buy out some free agent seasons.
The MLBPA has to be considerably less pleased. Very few marquee players are actually stepping up and challenging the arbitration system. If Lincecum had won his argument today and received $13 million, it was perfectly conceivable to see a situation in which he could have earned $22 million-$25 million in a season before even becoming a free agent. Lincecum’s award might have been the difference between Jair Jurrjens asking for $9 million or $7 million when he’s up for arbitration for the first time next year. If could have set a precedent for when Clayton Kershaw and Rick Porcello become eligible for the first time in two years.
There won’t be any domino effect now, though. Lincecum is just the latest in a long line of big talents to play it safe.

Rob Manfred wants a new, unnecessary rule to protect middle infielders


Commissioner Rob Manfred is at the Cards-Cubs game this afternoon and the sporting press just spoke with him about the fallout from the Chase Utley/Ruben Tejada play from the other night. Not surprising.

Also not surprising? Manfred’s desire to implement a new rule in an effort to prevent such a play from happening again. Or, at the very least, to allow for clear-cut punishment for someone who breaks it:

Which is ridiculous, as we already have Rule 6.05(m) on the books. That rule — which is as clear as Crystal Pepsi — says a baserunner is out when . . .

(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play:

Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

That rule totally and completely covers the Utley-Tejada situation. The umpires were wrong for not enforcing it both then and in the past, but that’s the rule, just as good as any other rule in that book and in no way in need of replacement.

Why not just enforce that rule? What rule would “better protect” infielders than that one? What would do so in a more straightforward a manner? What could baseball possibly add to it which would make plays at second base less confusing rather than more so?

I suspect what Manfred is interested in here is some means to change this from a judgment call to a clear-cut rule. It was that impulse that led to the implementation of clocks for pitchers and batters and innings breaks rather than giving umpires the discretion to enforce existing pace-of-play rules. It was that impulse which led to a tripartite (or is it quadpartite?) means of determining whether a catcher impermissibly blocks the plate or a runner barrels him over rather than simply enforce existing base-blocking rules.

But taking rules out of the subjective realm and into the objective is difficult or downright impossible in many cases, both in law and in baseball. It’s almost totally impossible when intent is an element of the thing, as it is here. It’s likewise the case that, were there a clear and easy bright line to be established in service of a judgment-free rule on this matter, someone may have stumbled upon it once in the past, oh, 150 years. And maybe even tried to implement it. They haven’t, of course. Probably because there was no need, what with Rule 6.05(m) sitting up there all nice and tidy and an army of judgment-armed umpires standing ready to enforce it should they be asked to.

Unfortunately, Major League Baseball has decided that eschewing set rules in favor of new ones is better. Rules about the time batters and pitchers should take. Rules about blocking bases. Rules about how long someone should be suspended for a first time drug offense. Late Selig and Manfred-era Major League Baseball has decided, it seems, that anything 150 years of baseball can do, it can do better. Or at least newer and without the input of people in the judgment-passing business like umpires and arbitrators and the like.

Why can’t baseball send a memo to the umpires and the players over the winter saying the following:

Listen up:

That rule about running into fielders that you all have already agreed to abide by in your respective Collective Bargaining Agreements? We’re serious about it now and WILL be enforcing it. If you break it, players, you’re going to be in trouble. If you refuse to enforce it, umpires, you’re going to be in trouble. Understood? Good.


Bobby M.

If players complain, they complain. They don’t have a say about established rules. If, on the other hand, your process of making new rules is easier than your process of simply enforcing rules you already have, your system is messed up and we should be having a whole other conversation.

Anti-Chase Utley signs at Citi Field were brutal and hilarious

Chase Utley sign

Obviously Chase Utley was not the most popular figure in Citi Field last night. The fans booed him like crazy and chanted for him to make an appearance after the game got underway.

They made signs too. Lots and lots of signs. The one at the top of this article is the only one the Associated Press saw fit to grab a photo of, it seems. But there were more and, unlike that one, they were less than tame.

My favorite one was this one, held by a girl about my daughter’s age. It’s direct. It’s totally unequivocal. It gets the point across:

There’s no arguing with that. Utley could show up with a team of lawyers and after five minutes in front of this girl he’d be forced to admit, both orally and in writing, that, yes, he Buttley.

The New York Post categorizes many more of them here. Including one that didn’t make it into the park which said “Chase Utley [hearts] ISIS.” It was confiscated by Citi Field personnel. Why?

The sign, which actually used a “heart” drawing for loves, was confiscated by Citi Field security after she got inside Monday night. Culpepper was annoyed but gave a frank explanation.

“My guess is Isis doesn’t want to be associated with Chase Utley,” she said, calling him, “my least favorite player ever.”

Somebody call the burn unit.

NLDS, Game 4: Dodgers vs. Mets lineups

Clayton Kershaw

Here are the Dodgers and Mets lineups for Game 4 of the NLDS in New York:

CF Kike Hernandez
2B Howie Kendrick
1B Adrian Gonzalez
3B Justin Turner
SS Corey Seager
RF Yasiel Puig
C A.J. Ellis
LF Justin Ruggiano
SP Clayton Kershaw

With a left-hander on the mound for New York the Dodgers are stacking the lineup with right-handed bats, using an outfield of Yasiel Puig, Justin Ruggiano, and Kike Hernandez rather than Andre Ethier, Carl Crawford, and Joc Pederson. Adrian Gonzalez and Corey Seager are the only lefty bats in the lineup. A.J. Ellis gets the start over Yasmani Grandal by virtue of being the personal catcher for Clayton Kershaw, who’s pitching on short rest.

RF Curtis Granderson
3B David Wright
2B Daniel Murphy
LF Yoenis Cespedes
C Travis d'Arnaud
1B Lucas Duda
SS Wilmer Flores
CF Juan Lagares
SP Steven Matz

Obviously facing Clayton Kershaw is much different than facing Brett Anderson, but they’re both lefties and manager Terry Collins is using the same lineup as Game 3 with one slight change: Travis d’Arnaud and Lucas Duda flipped in the batting order.