 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Bulldog still has some bite Maddux has faded a bit, but his career is far from overPosted: Wednesday April 09, 2003 1:16 PMUpdated: Tuesday May 06, 2003 1:01 PM
Click here to send a question to Tom Verducci's Mailbag. One of the things you learn from watching and covering sports for a long time is never be too quick to write off great athletes. (See Roger Clemens, Mark McGwire, Paul Molitor, etc.) It's rare for a Hall of Fame talent to lose it all of a sudden unless an injury is involved. Their declines tend to be gradual. In other words, I refuse to believe that a guy with the skills and smarts of Greg Maddux, who last year won 16 games and finished second in the NL in ERA, has suddenly become mediocre or worse. That said, I fully understand the leadoff question in this week's bag. Maddux has never lost his first two starts of a season. (His third is scheduled for Wednesday night.) This year, he lost them and he lost them badly. I am a big fan of Greg Maddux, but I think his age (he turns 37 on April 14) is becoming a problem. Is this the year he finally starts to fade? What kind of numbers do you see him putting up?
I did see a bit of fade in Maddux last year, when his staying power in games declined noticeably. (He told me he's cooked now at 100 pitches.) Here's something else: his pitches no longer have the same nasty movement they once did. In his prime, the four-time Cy Young Award winner would get people to miss 86 mile-an-hour pitches over the plate and you'd shake your head and say, 'How'd they miss that?' The reason was the incredible late movement. I don't see that anymore. Now those pitches are getting clocked. Something to remember: Maddux has always been the master of adjustments. I think he'll figure out a way to remain a 15-game winner, but maybe not the ace he's been in the past. It looks like more of the same with the Rangers pitching this year. Will Texas ever be able to put a decent staff together as long as they have to pay A-Rod all that money? Could it actually be in the Rangers' best interest to trade Alex Rodriguez?
Sure, trade A-Rod for Tim Hudson, Barry Zito and Mark Mulder and the Rangers are back in business. Seriously, A-Rod and his salary are not the problem. It's the Rangers' player development system. When was the last time they developed a front-of-the-rotation starter? Take A-Rod's $25 million per year and you still have $91 million to spend and still remain under the luxury tax threshold. That's plenty of coin with which to put together a good staff. I also think because the Ballpark in Arlington is such a hitter's park, the Rangers will have trouble developing and attracting great pitching. It's a lesser version of the Coors Field effect. Next year is huge for Texas and A-Rod. With so much money coming off the payroll after this season (a dozen players are in their final year) the Rangers can make a play for pitching this winter.
Tom, I really enjoyed your column on the 500 Home Run Club. Do you think we've reached the point where 500 dingers is not an automatic ticket to the Hall of the Fame? Do you still feel the milestone is all that special? No, we're not there yet. I think the next 10 years will tell us. Look at it this way: until Jose Canseco came along, 450 homers was the automatic number for Hall of Fame enshrinement. Now it's been scaled up to 500, a number I still think is special because of guys like Canseco, Albert Belle, Andre Dawson, Dale Murphy, Jim Rice, et al who didn't reach it. Sometimes I feel like just about any Joe with supplements, a trainer and a triple-dipped lacquered maple bat can hit 50 home runs. But putting up big numbers consistently is still special. In your 500 Home Run Club column you mentioned three players, specifically -- Rafael Palmeiro, Fred McGriff and Jeff Bagwell. Can you tell me what you think each player's Hall of Fame chances are?
I'm a Hall of Fame voter. I like the rule that requires you to wait five years after a guy retires to vote on him because the perspective is so valuable. So I hesitate to make definitive calls on guys while they're still playing. But I will say this: I expect all three of the players you mentioned to be Hall of Famers. Tom, why are the Red Sox constantly trying to trade Shea Hillenbrand? The guy can hit and he's young. Who would Boston play at third if they dealt Hillenbrand? Do you think he'll be traded?
Hillenbrand is not your stathead's favorite kind of player because he doesn't walk much. But here's the deal with him: he keeps getting better. He keeps raising the ceiling scouts set for him. That's impressive. Bill Mueller can play third, of course, but is he an everyday guy for a championship team? Here's another reason Hillenbrand might be traded: he's young and cheap and good, and that appeals to many teams, so he may be the best chip the Red Sox have when it's time to get some bullpen help. The Red Sox can get to the postseason without Hillenbrand. They can't get there without a reliable arm to anchor the bullpen. I don't expect the Pirates to keep up their current pace, but their pitching seems to have improved greatly from last year. Could Pittsburgh make some noise in the NL Central this season? Do you think Kris Benson can become a 20-game winner?
Benson no doubt has the stuff to be a 20-game winner. His mechanics right now look so smooth and easy that I think he's just about all the way back from reconstructive elbow surgery. I think the Pirates have a shot to play winning baseball this year. That's not enough for a playoff spot, but if you can play .500 ball for four months, you become a factor in the wild-card scramble. Tom, do you think Chuck Knoblauch is finished? From a being gold glove second baseman to not having your contract picked up by the Royals -- what an amazing downward spiral!
You could have asked me that question after the 2001 season and I would have said yes. I have no clue what the Royals were thinking last year. He can't play second base, he can't hit like an outfielder, he can't throw and he does not represent a threat on the bench. With Rickey Henderson seemingly in retirement, can you tell us your thoughts on the career of the greatest leadoff hitter ever?
First-ballot Hall of Famer, greatest leadoff hitter ever, one of the most dynamic offensive players ever and one of the most widely misunderstood players. I covered Henderson when he was on the 1985 Yankees and he dominated games almost the way Michael Jordan has in basketball. That's not supposed to happen in baseball. Every time I looked up Henderson was on third base and Don Mattingly was driving him in without even getting a hit. Tom, did you read the March 30 New York Times Magazine cover story on Billy Beane? Do you think that's the way GMs will be managing their teams in the future, or do you think Beane's success is a fluke and the A's will eventually suffer because he keeps trading away the good players?
I did read the excellent piece and thought Beane came across poorly in some spots, especially for taking Steve Phillips and his fellow GMs as rubes, for second-guessing and giving up Art Howe and for appearing vain to the Mets secretary (which I don't think Beane is). I also hardly see how acquiring a run-of-the-mill left-handed middle relief guy like Ricardo Rincon makes you a genius. I do think some teams will run their teams similarly, if only because of the influx of young GMs who didn't play in the majors and rely heavily on statistical-based analysis (Brian Cashman, J.P. Ricciardi, Theo Epstein, Kevin Towers, etc.) are already operating in that mode -- and they are hiring like-minded young assistants who will someday operate other franchises that way. So, get used to it. Beane is terrific and would do a good job anywhere. But make no mistake about this: You put Hudson, Mulder and Zito on any team -- even the Tigers -- and that team will be respectable no matter its payroll. The A's run will last as long as they are able to keep those three hurlers. Is there any reason why the All-Star Game is being kept out of New York? The last time the Yankees had it was in '77, and Shea hasn't hosted it since '64. To your knowledge, has the game been offered and passed up by both the Yankees' and Mets' brass within the last 10 years, or is it just a matter of New York being bumped because baseball wants to showcase all of the newer stadiums? The problem I have with that theory is that in '94 and '96 the game was played at Three Rivers and Veterans Stadium, respectively, two of the worst ballparks in the league.
My understanding is that neither team has made a pitch to host the game. Major League Baseball has definitely leaned toward awarding the contest to new ballparks, partly because its used the All-Star Game as a bargaining chip when teams go hat-in-hand to cities looking for ballpark funding. (Build it and you too can host the game!) My feeling is neither the Mets nor Yankees have felt strongly enough about wanting the game because what's in it for them? Other cities like the prestige and the way the event can be an incentive to sell season-ticket packages. You would think baseball would want to have the game in New York, especially at Yankee Stadium, for the exposure. Sports Illustrated senior writer Tom Verducci covers baseball for the magazine and is a regular contributor to SI.com. Click here to send a question to his Mailbag.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
