 |
| |
|
 |
 |
|||||||||||
|
Sawks talk Will Pedro stay? Is Little the right man to lead Boston?Posted: Wednesday April 30, 2003 4:02 PMUpdated: Wednesday April 30, 2003 6:26 PM
Click here to send a question to Tom Verducci's Mailbag. It's great to hear from Red Sox fans, the kind who see the season in danger when their team is 17-9 and mashing the ball. Wait. Is there any other kind of Red Sox fan? Doomsday is always right around the corner when you root for the Old Towne Team. I am tired of watching the Boston bullpen blow so many games for Pedro. I am also tired of seeing Pedro get minimal run support. It's as if the hitters decide to take the day off when Martinez pitches. Do you think these are the things that will ultimately lead to Pedro leaving the Sox?
No. I hate to sound cold about it, but it all comes down to the financial commitment the Red Sox will make to Pedro this offseason. (You would be right to expect him to deliver another Opening Day deadline for negotiations.) Martinez wants to stay and the Red Sox want to keep him. Now it's a matter of whether Boston comes up with the right offer. If it does, he re-signs. It's that simple. Grady Little of the Red Sox seems to be in over his head as manager. He can't figure out what to do with the bullpen by committee, he has no clue how to use Ramiro Mendoza and as soon as a hitter gets hot, Little takes him out of the lineup. Are these valid complaints, or am I overreacting?
I think you're on the right track. It's true that in past seasons Mendoza flourished as a sometime starter or a once-every-two-or-three-days reliever who pitched a couple innings at a time -- rather than tossing one inning on back-to-back days. I wouldn't blame the committee issue on Little, though. It wasn't his idea -- the front office foisted it upon him -- and the bigger problem is the personnel, not the idea. The Red Sox need reliable relief pitchers, period. I can't hang that on Little. I do think the jury is still out on his ability as a manager, though. He may be one of those guys who finds his stride in time, but Boston is not the best place for someone to go through a slow learning process. Albert Pujols is scheduled to miss three weeks because of a sprained elbow. Except for Matt Morris and Woody Williams, St. Louis' starters have pitched poorly. The Cardinals have no closer until Jason Isringhausen returns in perhaps late May from his right shoulder injury. Do you think the Cards can still be the best team in the Central division come September?
I admit I'm having my doubts, even after thinking the Cardinals were one of the best teams I saw in spring training and picking Pujols for MVP. I wouldn't worry too much about Isringhausen. And I think Cris Carpenter or maybe even Chuck Finley could give the rotation a boost midseason or later. I do have concerns about Pujols, though. If the injury lingers and affects his stroke, St. Louis could be in trouble, especially because I believe the Cubs are legit and capable of winning the division. As a Braves fan, your Tuesday column on the Kevin Millwood trade was the most insightful, informative and depressing one I've read to date. However, some in the Atlanta media have floated the idea that Millwood might want to re-sign with Atlanta as a free agent in the offseason. Do you think that's a possibility and, if so, why?
I guess it's possible for Millwood to come back, but only if Greg Maddux and Gary Sheffield come off the payroll. You recently wrote a column on the increase of strikeouts in baseball. Now, I believe we can agree that a strikeout normally requires more pitches thrown than a groundout or flyout. Also, baseball has recently been emphasizing plate discipline. Therefore, it makes sense that pitchers are throwing fewer innings. The game has changed. Seventh and eighth hitters are good for 15-20 homers. The days are gone when a pitcher could throw nine innings with 86 pitches. It makes no sense to say that today's pitchers are being babied. The game has changed, and hopefully the writers of today can take a good look and realize it.
Many good points in there, especially about the amount of sweat equity it takes for a pitcher to work through today's lineups. But I don't want to use that as a blanket excuse for pitchers to be inefficient. I see too many hurlers pitching away from contact -- that is, trying to get swinging or called strikes -- and not enough pitching to contact -- that is, allowing hitters to get themselves out. Check out the progress Bartolo Colon has made to that extent. As Greg Maddux likes to say, "I want them to make contact, just not on the barrel of the bat." And yes, you can find a baseball man in every city who will tell you that pitchers are babied -- from the way their pitch counts are managed at every step in the minors to the uproar that occurs whenever a major league starter goes on short rest. Don't take that as an insult to pitchers. It's become a necessary evolution in order to minimize the risk to which the game's most cherished commodity is exposed.
Check out these pitchers: Tom Glavine, Randy Johnson, Greg Maddux, Kevin Brown, Mike Hampton ... all became free-agents in recent years and signed with NL teams. Is this a result of these guys wanting to be in a DH-less league in which they'll face lineups that include weak-hitting pitchers? If so, don't AL owners realize this? Shouldn't they offer more money to high-profile free-agent pitchers? If Pedro doesn't sign the extension in Boston, will he seek out a team in the NL?
There's no doubt that it's tougher to pitch in the AL. I remember David Cone telling me a few years ago that when he was a free agent he was intrigued by the NL at that stage in his career just because it is slightly easier to get through those lineups. Outside of that, though, I don't know that it truly influences a pitcher's ultimate decision about where he plays. All those guys you mentioned took the most money on the table -- with the exception of Maddux, who turned down the Yankees to go to Atlanta in 1993. And I believe his knowledge and comfort level with the NL had a lot to do with that. If I were an AL team, though, I would temper my expectations if I signed a career NL pitcher. Does the name Chan Ho Park ring a bell? Is it just my imagination, or did Esteban Loazia start off hot two years ago with the Blue Jays before ending the season with a five-something ERA? Is he for real this year? Also, do the Orioles have any prospects at all?
Loaiza has been a traditionally fast starter and poor finisher, so let's see how he holds up over the length of the season. Matt Riley is once again pitching well in the Baltimore system and could be an impact player. Jack Cust could be a 30-homer guy as a DH. But the cupboard isn't very full beyond those two prospects. Is baseball's regular season too long? Would a shorter season (140 games) and more teams in the playoffs (six per league) create more fan interest and give small-market clubs a realistic chance to make it to postseason play?
If more teams are added to the playoffs or if the Division Series is expanded to best-of-seven, then yes, the season would be too long. The owners would have to cut back to 154 games. But none of them wants to give up any dates that would translate into revenue. Some even are dumb enough to think they could jam in day-night doubleheaders to keep 162 games while cutting a week from the calendar. 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.
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
