Cuckoo for Nick Canepa: Assumptions and false narratives

This morning MLB owners approved the Padres sale from John Moores to the O'Malley/Fowler/Mickelson group. Last evening Nick Canepa wrote a column called, Padres appear headed in right direction. It made me say, "Cuckoo." . . .

For the most part the column wasn't bad. Canepa advocated retaining CEO and President, Tom Garfinkel, with which I wholeheartedly agree (I'll say something about the Garfinkel Situation later). Canepa also said other stuff. I hate to nitpick but I come undone when I read confounding ideas, and all it takes is one. To wit:

Byrnes reminds me a bit of former GM Kevin Towers. After former boss Jeff Moorad fired Towers, I wrote Moorad’s first major decision would be the worst he would make as an owner. I wasn’t wrong. Moores, who still had controlling interest in the team, shouldn’t have allowed it to happen.

Oh yes Nick, I remember. I believe it was October of 2011 when you last referenced this sentiment and I skewered your column for it.

But there wasn't just one confounding idea. There were at least two! Canepa would go on to write his next puzzling tidbit in the subsequent paragraph:

But that’s baseball. Towers is doing fine in Arizona. And, after making the decision to replace KT with Jed Hoyer — another mistake, not because Hoyer was ill-equipped, just a bad fit here — Moorad made it right in naming Byrnes GM after Hoyer bailed to take on the unenviable (but more lucrative) task of trying to put the Cubs back together again.  

Cuckoo. I'm going to try and work this one out. Here it goes . . .

Jed Hoyer was not ill-equipped to take a job as GM of the Padres. This means that he was equipped to take a job as GM of the Padres. Yet another way to say it would be to write that he was qualified, prepared or ready.

So if Jed Hoyer was qualified for the job of general manager then why on earth was he a bad fit in San Diego?

I'm relying on a thesaurus now.

If you are fit then one could say that you are competent. Or, qualified. Or, prepared. Or even, ready.

But if you are a bad fit then you are the opposite of fit, which means you are incapable. At least that's what the thesaurus says: Incapable is the antonym for fit. And since Jed Hoyer was a bad fit in San Diego I am left to assume that Nick Canepa believes that Jed was simultaneously incapable and qualified. 'Tis a conundrum we have here.

The reader is left to assume what Nick Canepa is talking about. Since I am someone who is dialed in to the local baseball scene I am going to make an assumption which may be totally off-base.

I think Canepa is trying to convey that while Jed Hoyer was qualified and ready to become a GM in major league baseball he was not suited for the job in San Diego. Jed came from large market Boston where the pockets were deep and perhaps Canepa feels that he didn't have the proper mindset to operate on a shoestring budget in small market San Diego. Does that sound reasonable?

It doesn't sound reasonable when you consider that Jed Hoyer focused heavily on the draft (a place where small market teams can exploit available talent at relatively modest cost) and also emphasized building a club that could use PETCO Park to its advantage. Using PETCO to its advantage means building a strong rotation and bullpen along with defense and speed which are all relatively inexpensive attributes when juxtaposed with free-agent power hitters. It kind of sounds like Jed Hoyer understood what it meant to build a club in small market San Diego and maybe he was . . . a good fit?

This isn't a defense of Jed Hoyer. He's gone. Whatever.

I wrote this because Nick Canepa makes no sense. When I write things I always re-read them to see if it makes sense. Sometimes my ideas are not coherent. So I go back and fix what I wrote. Sometimes it still doesn't make sense and I say, "Too bad, you're reading this for free!"

I tried to figure out what Nick said. I offered an idea. And then I debunked myself and quite possibly Nick. I'm pretty sure it's what Nick Canepa meant and all I can think is: He sure displays an amazing commitment to a false narrative.

Where art thou, Tim Sullivan?

Deciphering a Jed Hoyer catch phrase with Darren Smith

Jed Hoyer returned to San Diego this week with his struggling Chicago Cubs, losers of five straight. At the conclusion of their series with the Padres the streak would stand at eight. During the middle of the debacle Hoyer took time to speak with Darren Smith of XX1090.

I always enjoyed the weekly spots Jed Hoyer did with Darren during his tenure as GM of the Padres but I think I enjoy his occasional visits as Cubs GM even more. Jed's aware that he needs to be careful with what he says to the press yet he always produces intelligent responses despite the inner workings of the clouded human mind. As I noted back in January, what Jed says doesn't always jibe with what Jed thinks.

One of the things you'll notice is that when being interviewed By Darren Smith, Jed Hoyer will often say,

"That's a great question."

Hey,  Darren asks great questions. He's a professional. But Hoyer's catch phrase is more about buying himself time than it is about complimenting Mr. Smith. The phrase gives him just enough time to provide a nuanced answer.

Here's what was going through Jed Hoyer's mind on Tuesday as he said, "That's a great question."


Darren's Question: 

"Do you get the sense that Cubs fans feel like they expect their team to lose or do they expect their team to win"

Jed's Catch Phrase: 

"That's a great question."

Jed's Stream of Consciouness:

Steady, steady. Play this one right. Hope Solo said all the wrong things during the Olympics and she was crucified for it. Brandi Chastain's sport-bra. 1999 World Cup. Soccer's a great sport. I enjoy swimming. Call Me Maybe. Deep Dish pizza is not good. Don't say that! Ramble on this one, ramble. The internet is world wide. Chicagoans will hear this in Illinois. They'll hear it in SD. This park was full of Cubs fans during the last home series of 2010. Italian beef sandwiches. Distract. Misinformation. Tie it to the Red Sox.

Jed's Answer:

"[blah, blah, blah, bunch of comparisons to the Red Sox and growing up in New England, blah, blah, blah]... In Chicago there's been long stretches of not being good. People say, 'You don't understand, it can't be done.' I think for us it fuels the fire. Of course it can be done. We're gonna build this thing the right way. We're gonna build a team that sustains success. The Cubs have made the playoffs six times since 1945. You think about it, that's once every 13 years.

AJM's Grade:

 Excellent job filibustering by the Cubs GM. When ever you can tie an answer like this to the Red Sox and their historical woes you're bound to make tough luck Cubbie fans feel a sense of hope. Speaking of Hope. Not mentioning her stripping down to her sports bra, a la Brandi Chastain,  in the event of a U.S. gold medal was also probably wise.

***

Darren's Question: 

"Do you think he'd [Anthony Rizzo] have that kind of success if he were still playing here?"

Jed's Catch Phrase: 

"That's a great question."

Jed's Stream of Consciousness:

F*ck. No, mind. Do not censor your/mine/our thoughts. Say it. F*ck! Why does my mind keep doing that? I have free will. Hope Solo's sports bra. Be careful. Don't diminish Anthony Solo's accomplishments thus far. Rizzo. Rizzo. Rizzo. Frank Rizzo. Should I bring my f*ckin tools? More censorship. Chick-fil-A. Chick. Hope Solo. Undergarments. Stop. Anthony Rizzo is a winner. Things are going to go his way. Ah, Beck's "Loser". I loved 1993. Hope Solo. Anthony Rizzo. Use the psychology aspect.

Jed's Answer: 

"I think change of scenery can be a powerful thing. I certainly do think there is a PETCO effect that can get in guys heads. He's hit a lot of homers on the road. He's hit a lot of ball really hard. But you know, maybe of his nine homers three or four don't go out here. And I think that does get in your head."

AJM's Grade:

Good save by Jed. With everything that appeared to be clouding his mind just about anything could have spilled out of his mouth. Another wise move not working Hope Solo into this answer. With a bigger press corps in Chicago it would only lead to questions of competency. A very measured response. A response that gives the appearance that at the very least Anthony Rizzo will continue to have moderate success at the big league level.

The mind is an amazing thing. What we think and when we think it -- it's a wonder we ever even produce a cogent thought to be expressed orally.

In addition to the comedic effect and the allusions to a half-naked Hope Solo victory celebration this was a great interview. Later in the interview, Jed Hoyer gave insights into the change of ownership and why Ron Fowler's involvement is a good thing. Check it out.

Cuckoo for Nick Canepa: Subjective payroll analysis

Nick Canepa wrote a column about Phil Mickelson's role in the new Padres ownership group. And if you can imagine, I took umbrage with a small part:

Many San Diegans who voted for the building of Petco Park feel they were victims of a bait-and-switch by Padres ownership, believing Moores and management had not delivered on their promise of a solid, contending franchise. The Padres never said they were going to spend like the Yankees, but player payroll has been among the lowest in baseball for some time and the results haven’t always been pleasant.

In many ways I agree with the first part of this excerpt. Proposition 98 passed after the Padres' World Series appearance against the Yankees and then Moores packed it in until 2004. This (in)action was horribly unfair to Padres fans.

My issue is with Canepa's last sentence. It feels lazy. Canepa writes:

 ...player payroll has been among the lowest in baseball for some time...

When Canepa writes this I feel it's lazy because it is written in a way that says, "I don't really care to do any research."


Payroll has been the lowest for "sometime"? It's such a subjective frame of reference, what does that even mean? And what defines "lowest"? This is also subjective. Are we talking bottom half, third, or quarter of the league in payroll? With 30 teams in MLB, one could say that team number 15 is part of the lowest.

What do Padres fans know right now? We know that payroll has been brutally low since John Moores decided to put a mistress on the books. His subsequent divorce diminished the product on the field from 2009-2012. But the Moores divorce is not the entire story of payroll history in the East Village. PETCO Park existed from 2004-2008 and if my memory serves correctly I don't think that payroll was among the lowest in MLB at that time.

Let's define "lowest" payroll. It's completely subjective but I'm going to say that it is defined by being in the bottom 3rd of the league. So:

Teams 1-10 are the top third -- Well-to-do types.
Teams 11-20 are middle third -- Floating along, accidental like on the wind.
Teams 21-30 are the bottom third -- Living off revenue sharing.

I have yet to research this so I run the risk of making Nick Canepa look like he was correct but I think the exercise is valid regardless.

Let's take a  look at opening day payroll and where the Padres ranked amongst their competitors. (Here is a second source, and probably a more reliable one, which shows nearly identical dollar amounts).

2004 -- 18th place -- Middle Third -- $54, 639, 503
2005 -- 17th place -- Middle Third -- $62, 888, 192
2006 -- 17th place -- Middle Third -- $69, 896, 141
2007 -- 24th place -- Bottom Third -- $58, 110, 567
2008 -- 19th place -- Middle Third -- $73, 677, 616
2009 -- 29th place -- Bottom Third -- $42, 796, 700
2010 -- 29th place -- Bottom Third -- $37, 799, 300
2011 -- 28th place -- Bottom Third -- $45, 869, 140
2012 -- 30th place -- Bottom Third -- $55, 244, 700

So what does this information tell us?

During the PETCO Park era, payroll has fluctuated between the bottom middle third of MLB teams and the absolute bottom of the bottom third.

The first 5 years in PETCO Park (almost first 5 years . . . damn you 2007 for ruining my narrative!) the Padres were in the middle third of payroll. I believe this is where payroll should be*.

*A run of sustained success where attendance is thriving and people in San Diego actually care could allow the Padres to push the upper threshold of the middle third in payroll. Merely an opinion, thinking out loud.

We see that the dramatic shift in payroll occurs in 2009 at the time when John Moores began going through a divorce and sold the team on layaway to the Jeffrey Moorad group.

This all comes down to the use of subjective reasoning to shape narratives. Padres fans have the right to be perturbed at the team and for their thrifty ways in a new ball park but a newspaper's job is to provide adequate information to illuminate its readership.

I think Canepa fails here by using what I've termed "lazy" language. The type of language that says, "I don't care to do any research because it takes too long and god damn it, I have a narrative that I'm sticking too and for cripes sake this whole article is about Phil Mickelson, who is not Mike Schmidt, anyways! Geez! Don't you people have a sense of humor?"

The media and Carlos Quentin's presence

After Friday night's Padres win against . . . the team they were playing (?)*. . .  Carlos Quentin refused to go on the post-game show. I suppose he didn't really refuse Friday's invitation because the truth is that he hasn't done a post-game show the entire year. Ted Mendenhall of XX1090 called Quentin out for his conspicuous absence and then on Sunday morning Craig Elsten of XX1090 discussed the merits of player interviews and whether or not there is an obligation for these guys to be accountable for their play.

*I'm blanking on who they played on account of not being able to watch the Padres on TV. Still blanking. I'll probably remember it by the time I finish this but I'm going to roll with my ignorance rather than look it up. There's no way a fan should be ignorant of the opponent of a three game series. A three game series! Yet I am. I deserve a little latitude, do I not?


Part of telling the story of a game includes player and manager quotes. These quotes are gathered after the completion of a game and can not be woven into the beat writer's story without the willingness of players and the manager to make themselves available at the end of a long day's work*. Without the beat writer's access to players and manager there is no beat writer and you have only bloggers recapping games for the public. Primary source quotes fill in the dark spots of a game, those spots that need rationales from those involved first hand.

*A long day's work for both player and writer alike.

Bud Black gives a press conference after each game. My assumption is that the Front Office directs Black to appear before the press at designated times. I've never heard of Bud Black no-showing to a post-game press conference so I think this assumption is safe.

What of players and their obligations to the press? I will go ahead and make another assumption and that's that players do not have a contractual obligation to make themselves available. This assumption feels wrong but since Quentin has not gone on the flagship radio station* to do a post game interview then I guess it also safe.

* Distinctions must be made. Carlos Quentin is probably available at his locker and gives quotes to the writers (Again, I don't want to look up Friday's game because I want to maintain my ignorance of the Padres' weekend opponent). But to make it to the radio show takes a little extra effort and I don't begrudge a player having zero interest in the process.

Here's the truth of the matter: Baseball player's, for the most part, have nothing too interesting to say. They speak in Crash Davis cliches to the point where fans can guess what the star player might say* after any given performance. I think that comments from Bud Black are essential to a game summary. Fans need game rationales from the skipper**.

*"He's a good pitcher and I new I had to get the pitch I was looking for. Luckily I hit it well. You just never know if the ball will get out in right center."
** Budbot reference inserted.

Would I like to hear from Carlos Quentin? I actually would. When I heard him on Darren Smith's show prior to the start of the season I found him to be well spoken, intelligent, and very introspective. He's a smart, local guy, educated at Stanford and I'd love to hear him on the post-game show.

Allow me to make an analogy. San Diego is a Nordstrom town and the Padres are somewhere between Wal-Mart and Target. The Nordstrom folk look down their noses at the lowly Wal-Mart/Target tweeners. The Nordstrom folk of San Diego need to be sold on the Padres. How can Padres management do such a thing? Well, they could start by committing $30 million dollars to a player who has a guarantee not to be traded during the next three years. They did that? Sweet, that's half the battle!

People in San Diego still aren't paying attention to the padres though. The Padres are like the tree falling in the proverbial empty woods. There isn't a sound being made. This must change.

I know Carlos Quentin likes his privacy but if I were his boss I would begin to encourage a more visible presence. I would pump out some commercials of him sitting at his locker reading Steinbeck intertwined with some of his PETCO bombs or some other crazy comedy. I'd also ask of Quentin that he appear on the flagship's post-game show at least once a week and put it in his court if he'd like to do more.

San Diego needs to know the Padres are here. Carlos Quentin crushes HRs and catchers. Let him announce the Padres presence.

Holy crap! They played the Mets!

Cuckoo for Nick Canepa: A telephone call to discuss how Chase Headley is still not Mike Schmidt

Following Kevin Acee's lead, Nick Canepa used Thursday morning's edition of the U-T to finally throw his two cents into the mix regarding Josh Byrnes' deadline non-moves and extensions.

I called out both columnists last week for not writing anything about the Quentin extension and it kind of pissed Canepa off. What can I say . . . I'm cuckoo.

Nick Canepa's Thursday column was pretty well written. I found myself nodding my head in agreement. And then the whole column unraveled.

As Canepa praised Josh Byrnes and my head nodded, a familiar jewel emerged:

What a professional July for Byrnes. He extended the contracts of left fielder Carlos Quentin and closer Huston Street and refused to give away Headley, who isn’t Mike Schmidt but may be his most reliable position player.

 Wut the wut? Didn't Nick use this same Mike Schmidt reference a couple of weeks ago?

I could not let this comparison stand! I decided to call Nick Canepa and record the call for your enjoyment . . .


[Pleasantries exchanged. Loathing confirmed.]

AJM: Who is Mike Schmidt?

CANEPA: Seriously? He was a third baseman for the Phillies.

AJM: Did he have a mustache?

CANEPA: Yes. What's your point?

AJM: I'm trying to figure something out, be patient. Was he a switch hitter?

CANEPA: That's the problem with young people. Asking if Michael Jack Schmidt was a switch hitter? You're an idiot.

AJM: I meant sexually.

CANEPA: What?

AJM: Never mind. Did he win MVP awards?

CANEPA: Three, Senor Internet writer. Avenging Jack Murphy. What a bunch of crap.

AJM: Be patient. Did he win gold gloves?

CANEPA: He was the best. How old are you?

AJM: My age is not relevant to this discussion.

CANEPA: Your brain is not germane to this discussion.

AJM: German? I'm not German. What does that have to . . .

CANEPA: What is the point of all of this?

AJM: Sorry. If Chase Headley shaved his beard but kept his mustache would he kind of be like Mike Schmidt?

CANEPA: Have you even seen Schmidt's mustache? His mustache was the Johnny Weismuller of mustaches.

AJM: Who?

CANEPA: Its an Olympics reference. That's the problem with people today, they don't appreciate yesterday. You've probably never even seen a Bogart film.

AJM: I forgot what, oh wait. Bogart?

CANEPA: Bogart! Do you even read my columns before you lampoon them?

AJM: Let's move this along, sir. I know you're busy. Has anyone ever really suggested that Chase Headley is Mike Schmidt? I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that he's good, and could have value to many teams, but that he's no Hall of Famer. Certainly no Mike Schmidt.

CANEPA: I'm trying to make a point by using the Schmidt reference ad nauseum.

AJM: Well, I don't get it.

CANEPA: Good god, don't you people have a sense of humor? Would it have worked better if I had written that Chase Headley is no Joe Randa?

AJM: [... smiles...]

AJM: [...squeals like school girl...]

AJM: [... quickly hangs up phone...]

AJM; [... goes and writes in diary...]

*I didn't actually call Nick Canepa. This is merely an imagined phone-call Q&A with Nick Canepa.

Kevin Acee takes it upon himself to write about the Padres after winning a game of Candy Land with Nick Canepa

In the interest of fairness it is my duty to type kind words towards the U-T's Kevin Acee.

It took a week but a U-T columnist finally acknowledged the contract extension of Carlos Quentin. Of course the catalyst for the Quentin mention was the off-the-wall extension of closer Huston Street, but hey, complainers can't quibble. Or can they . . .


Of course they can! But I'm not going to.  I'll just suggest that you go read Kevin Acee's column, Street signing points in right direction,  providing this tasty nugget for you:

Clearly, what’s underway is an attempt to reverse history, to stem the attrition and to no longer be awful.

I enjoyed this line. Pointed and accurate, it's a piece of criticism that the Padres are deserving of, no matter how many positives future generations of ownership perform. The ownership of the hour in San Diego will always be paying for the sins of their Padres*. It is a disappointing reality based on more than 40 years of pain.

*Do you see what I did there? Padres = Fathers? Oh never mind.

And what of the Huston Street extension? When I heard that extension talks were underway with Street, despite his excellent numbers, I thought it was ludicrous! When I heard that the Padres and Street consummated the deal on Sunday I was incredulous!

Then I saw the terms of the deal. Two years at $7M annually for a relatively young guy who currently earns more than that in 2012? I'm not sure what Street's thought process is but I think that this was a good deal for the Padres. This is the deal the Padres would have liked to have given Heath Bell which we now see would have been like wiping our rear ends with $14M and then pissing on it and lighting it on fire. A disgusting proposition.

Huston Street's K/9 has jumped by 3 over the previous two seasons. Will this rate continue? If not what will Street look like as a Padre? And by what will Street look like as a Padre, I don't mean in 2013 and 2014, but in a matter of days?

In closing, I'm glad that Nick Canepa didn't write the linked column from above.

A tree falling in an empty wood (or how U-T columnists cover the Carlos Quentin extension)

The sports columnists for the U-T, Nick Canepa and Kevin Acee, have each been critical of the Padres during the 2012 season, and fairly so. Each writer also stated unique views of Padres LF Carlos Quentin earlier in the season.

Allow me to take you on a timeline tour . . .


JUNE 3rd
Nick Canepa pens a column critical of the Padres with Carlos Quentin at its epicenter. Canepa writes:

And I say, no. Keep him. Re-sign him. Give the suffering fans in this town a hook on which to hang their hat. Be somebody for a change. Man up. It’s time to stop taking organizational laxatives and eat some cheese, rice and crow — you know, something that binds. 

When you tell somebody to "man-up" you're essentially calling them a girl which is sexist and offensive to the delicate sensibilities of the masses. When somebody does "man-up" it should be acknowledged. A form of "manning-up*", if you will.

*I foresee a Peyton Manning column in our future.


JUNE 6th
Kevin Acee pens a column critical of the Padres with Carlos Quentin at its epicenter: Acee writes:

So it is with much reluctance that I submit Carlos Quentin as trade bait.

 Disagreeing with the lead columnist? I like it.

Bottom line, the Padres aren’t good enough (or that close to getting there) to justify keeping Quentin right now. And besides, I just don’t believe Quentin is a guy you build your team around. Not that he needs to rise to that level to justify keeping him, but I’m not even sure the Padres could afford him at $7 or $8 million a year, which he will certainly deserve after this season.  

So you're saying the Padres don't have money? So it might be a story if they could spend that much? Or that if, by some act of God, the Padres spent even more, it would be a three part series!?

Oh, the Padres will be better if they have Quentin.

 Wait. So they should keep him? I sense conflict and passion, the seed and fertilizer of stories!

Now is the time when we fast-forward along our line of time. The Padres are terrible, Huston Street is an All Star even though Acee think Denorfia should represent San Diego, the Chargers season is on the horizon, blah, blah, blah . . .

July 22nd (morning)
Carlos Quentin signs a three year, $27M dollar contract extension with the San Diego Padres. The contract includes a No Trade Clause.

July 22nd (evening)
Nick Canepa does his best Nancy Drew and writes about Chargers Mysteries.

July 23rd
Kevin Acee writes about Penn State and how it got what it deserved. What it deserved? I'm assuming this column includes descriptive epithets about rape and death.

July 24th
Nick Canepa writes about a football referee. A fricking retired NFL referee!
Kevin Acee writes about Chargers rookie free agents and which ones might make the roster.

July 25th
Kevin Acee writes about AJ Smith signing players to contract extensions and doing it NOW! And as a bonus Acee throws in a little story on what the depth chart looks like on the eve of training camp. Depth charts. Yeah, those never change.

July 26th
Nick Canepa writes about the battle for the Chargers' kicking job. Guys who strike balls with their feet! Guys who can't tackle. Guys who are on the field for an aggregate of two minutes each game.

Kevin Acee's U-T archive
Nick Canepa's U-T archive

For two columnists who held such passionate feelings about the future of Carlos Quentin in early June, I find it astounding that neither has written a story about his contract extension. Don't they think it was a terrible decision to sign an injury prone player who's about to turn 30? Don't they think the extension represents a commitment to fans and ultimately a sign of hope that future dollars will be spent on talent in San Diego? A little of both maybe?

The financial commitment to Quentin represents the largest flow of cash* from the Padres since the great Little League uniform distribution of '12, yet nary a story was written?

* Just kidding. I think it was the remodeling effort for the introduction of a Hodads location at PETCO Park.

These statements and questions from me are merely rhetorical outrage. I'm not really surprised. We've heard both Canepa and Acee tell us how many clicks their Chargers stories get. We know that the Manchester & Lynch regime is but a cheerleader for all things Chargers and that they direct which stories will be written.

Maybe our columnists have directives from above to ignore the story and to instead write Chargers fluff as illustrated by our timeline above. What this amateur knows though, is that the Quentin extension is a story, good or bad.

I wonder if our columnists even had a professional desire to follow up their columns from June. Furthermore, I question that if the Quentin extension story was on their radar, would they have even fought to write the piece?

I hope it's the former. And latter.

Ripping Craig Elsten's guts out and lighting them on FIRE!

Last night on XX1090 I ripped Craig Elsten's guts out and lit them on FIRE!

I kid, I kid! I am but a merry prankster in the unforgiving world of Padres fandom. There were no guts and there was certainly no fire . . .  except the fire that burns from my heart for undervalued players who attempt to etch out an existence in the vast wilderness of PETCO Park.

This is simply my way of saying that Craig and I had a friendly little debate flavored by Chase Headley's future in San Diego. Let me give you some context first . . .


Craig wrote a column on XX1090 which posted on Tuesday. I recommend that you go read it but if you haven't the time the essentials of his argument are as follows (paraphrasing):

Chase Headley is an average player who is overvalued in the current market and should be traded to improve the Padres chances moving forward.

I only partially agree with Craig's thesis. If Josh Byrnes can make some desperate GM pay through the nose consequently converting Headley into a package of dynamic near-ready major league talent then sure, go for it. But as we know in these parts things don't always work according to plan. It is Josh Byrnes' job to listen and to perform his due diligence, as they say in the industry..

Where I disagreed with Craig was his estimation of Chase Headley as an average player. Chase Headley is not a player to build around but he is an important part of the PETCO Park roster puzzle.

Listen to last night's debate on XX1090: Includes 9 essential vitamins and minerals along with Jedd Gyorko, Dave Staton, and Joe Randa references.

Editor's Note:
Jordan Carruth declared me the winner of last night's debate. You be the judge.

Deciphering Darren Smith Questions at the All Star Break

Each day when Darren Smith gets behind the microphone at XX1090 his listeners forget a very simple truth: Darren Smith is writer.

One cannot speak for 3 hours to a captive audience without having first written down research notes and probing questions for those he interviews each day. Darren Smith is not a writer of prose (although he certainly may be in his free time) but the quality of questions he writes for his guests are perhaps the most essential element of his successful show.

Last week Darren interviewed Padres MLB beat writer Corey Brock coming out of the All-Star break. A week after the fact I've obtained the original questions (typed in italics) intended for Brock and they display only a minor resemblance to the questions that were asked on air (typed in bold) . . .


The original questions give the listener an inkling of how much things can change within the course of a single show, and segment for that matter. With financial obligations to sponsors and their coveted advertisement spots, the radio host is always up against a clock, which invariably leads to changes on the fly. We see this with the questions designated for Corey Brock. We also see the humor as well as Darren's professed goal of high IQ radio with a splash of absurdity . . .

"If you were to say in a couple of sentences, how would you describe the first half of the season, the first three months plus of the 2012 campaign?"

If you were to use a comparison to movies featuring Nicholas Cage, which Cage performance would best describe the 2012 Padres? Captain Corelli's Mandolin or Ghost Rider? a couple of sentences, how would you describe the first half of the season, the first three months plus of the 2012 un-televised disastercampaign?

"What has really been the impact of all these injuries? Where has it hurt 'em? Has it hurt 'em at the lower levels, has it hurt 'em at the big league level? What's really been the biggest impact of them all?"

Has this team even begun to evaluate what they're doing wrong with pitchers? We've got torn elbows and shoulders. Pulled lats . . . What doe s a lat do? We got Carlos Quentin's bad knees. Issues of vertigo. Meh! What's next? Yeast infections?

"Do you think in hindsight, the label that they got or the ranking that they got in terms of farm system, being the number one farm system, do you think that that was accurate in hindsight?"

The Padres couldn't possibly have anything rated number one could they? But seriously, on a scale where Kate Upton is a 10, and Anne Hathaway is a 6 can we honestly say that the Padres score an Erin Burnett? Which of course, Corey will tell you, is an outstanding 9.6. Am I right, Corey? Erin Burnett a 9.6? Sound about right?

"Pick one of the trade candidates, since we don't have time for all of them, and we want to pace ourselves here for the next couple of weeks. Which decision do you think is the most interesting of the usual suspects of guys, that the Padres, that we hear, the Padres might be interested in trading?"

Please tell me that Will Venable won't be offered up for a trade, Corey. It's too entertaining to listen to the twitter folk berate his play and critique his hairline. His hairline? People seriously criticize his hairline which, I imagine, many people would kill for. No Will Venable, right Corey?

"What's happening differently with Carlos Quentin than what we saw getting out of the gates and getting off the DL?"

What's happening differently with Carlos Quentin? Is Carlos Quentin afraid of PETCO Park like Ryan Ludwick was or is his knee still bothering him? Or really, honestly, is he just not seeing any pitches because the line-up around him is horse-bleep? Or was it Comic-Con and all the weirdos walking around the Gaslamp? Did he get spooked?

"Who do you think wins the NL West?"

Tim Lincecum is firing up the bong again isn't he? Too many double doubles from In-N-Out?

"When do you think, or do you think, we'll see Nick Hundley again?"

Who's losing their front office job over the Nick Hundley extension?

I liked those original questions. I think they were Erin Burnett quality.

Cuckoo For Nick Canepa: People Chase Headley is not

In Monday's U-T Nick Canepa went on about how the 2012 Dream Team could beat the original Dream Team while simultaneously acknowledging the following:

• Michael Jordan was in his prime.
• Charles Barkley was phenomenal in 1992.
• People "who know the game" say that the best basketball ever played was during the 1992 Dream Team closed session practices.
• The 2012 edition of the Dream Team will get beat this year if it's not careful.

It was brilliant stuff. Let's move on to where he discusses Chase Headley in his hodge-podge-Sez-Me type column in which he never actually says "Sez Me" but certainly means it . . .


Nick Canepa would have us believe the following:

• Chase Headley will be traded.
• The Padres have depth at third base in the minors.
• Fred McGriff was given away in trade back in 1993.
• The columnist hates inter-division trades.
• Chase Headley is not Mike Schmidt.
• If a trade is executed between the rivals then the Padres should receive Magic Johnson.

Let's just see how Canepa wrote it:

Chase Headley is going to be traded. Let's just hope the Padres, who have some minor-league depth at third base, don't give him away (ala Fred McGriff). I hate inter-division trades. If the Dodgers want Headley, who is not Mike Schmidt, they should have to surrender Magic Johnson ...

I don't get Canepa.

Chase Headley, who is not Brooks Robinson, is a good ball player, a solid ball player.

Most fans would be loathe to watch Chase Headley, who is not Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch professing his love for Katie Holmes, don Dodger blue but Canepa is ignoring a very important point.

If you want value for Chase Headley, who is not Angelina Jolie as Lara Croft, then you have to be willing to deal with every club in each league.

This is not the distant past. There will be no fire-sale, the likes of which fans endured in 1993. The current owners need to keep some value on this club so they're not just going to dump Chase Headley, who is not Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.

Is there depth in the Padres minor league system? Sure. There's James Darnell, who is not Jed Gyorko. And there's Jed Gyorko, who is not Chase Headley (who incidentally is not The Savior or the Anti-Christ).

I just hope that if the Padres do trade Chase Headley, who is not Mercury 7 astronaut Wally Schirra, they get a windfall for him. Alas, I don't know if Chase Headley, who is not Jessica Alba in her prime, is a player who could command some sort of franchise altering wealth of talent to move to San Diego.

But if Chase Headley, who is not George Brett, was Jessica Alba in her prime then we'd be looking at an entirely different reality.

But Chase Headley, who is not Wade Boggs, is Chase Headley. So I guess we'll have to wait until July 31st to find out what becomes of Chase Headley, who is none of the above listed names.

Editor's Note:
No superstar team led by Michael Jordan would lose to the 2012 Dream Team.

A review of the new U-T Sports page

I used to read the Union-Tribune every day. Let me provide a little more context. I used to walk to a corner in the Gaslamp District and purchase one from a vending machine so that I could read the Union-Tribune every day beginning with the Sports page.

Over the years of depositing change* into the newspaper box I felt first hand the rising cost of news as well as the diminished size of our local newspaper. Was there less happening in the world? Much time has passed. Now it's called the U-T.

*I recall the days of .25 cents. Then .35 and .50 cents. Oh, crap. Quoting prices is the death knell of youth!

Yesterday the U-T presented their newly formatted Sports page in what has been described as more of a magazine style. It looks good. A lot of color pictures and a very cool black and white photo from the 1930s at the races in Del Mar. That's the one and only story on page 1. There are previews to other stories including Tight End competition amongst the Chargers, Everth Cabrera's dash for home in the Padres Saturday night win, and the upcoming Olympics in London. The only text written however belongs to the story of Del Mar and the opening of the track on Wednesday.

It's different . . .



I've been down on the U-T Sports page for sometime. Outside of in-season Chargers coverage, admiring a Tim Sullivan column, and laughing at Nick Canepa word jumbles I just don't get my news from there with any regularity. Now, with Tim Sullivan's unfortunate dismissal I have even less reason to return. You could say that I'm skeptical of it all: The paper's content and, its leadership (Doug Manchester and John Lynch).

Contrary to my usual concerns, yesterday's Sunday U-T Sports page was stacked with content. People complained via twitter that the Padres dramatic Saturday evening win in Chavez Ravine didn't deserve to be jammed all the way back on page 11. Sports Editor Jay Posner explained that the decision was a function of advertisements dictating how the inside of the paper is formatted but most importantly, to keep all of Major League baseball together.

In addition to the game recap written by Bill Center, the paper featured a Canepa column (D3*) on pitching injuries, a Chris Jenkins story on Kip Wells' fight to get out of the Mexican League, and a Q & A with Alex Hinshaw. There was a lot to digest. In a good way.

*For those irked that Everth Cabrera and the Padres did not receive mention until page D11, the Canepa column did appear on D3, right as readers open the paper. Maybe Canepa will get buried next time? No. OK. Let's move on.

Is the varied and increased content the product of this simply being the debut of a new format (and a Sunday no less) or is this what readers in San Diego are in for permanently?

The most important thing I read in Sunday's paper was the Q&A with new Executive Sports Editor, Larry Graham. Graham comes from ESPN.com (where he focused on AFC East football) but he also has newspaper experience on his resume.

Graham explains that they're hiring more people to deliver more content including more Chargers coverage (another blog) and increased prep coverage.  It sounds like many ideas will also revolve around the new U-T TV station and the increased staffing will look to deliver more "compelling stories".

Is there a lot more Padres coverage coming? Graham mentions a blog for the Padres which could be good, but it also sounds like the Friars will have to earn their bonus coverage. The largest metropolitan cities have all of the big four sports leagues: NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL. San Diego has but two of these leagues so sports coverage is distributed in the following way: Chargers, Chargers, Chargers, and Padres.

If you told me all of this 10 years ago I would have been ecstatic. More quality, local, sports content is all a sports junkie could ever ask for during a time when newspapers are downsizing. To integrate a more dense sports page with exclusive web content and a new television station is exciting and it is the dynamic type of product for which I'm willing to pay.

But it's not 10 years ago and again I return to that one little word: skeptical. The leadership at the U-T has made it known that they have an agenda and in terms of local sports it all revolves around a new stadium for the Chargers. They've also made it known that they will terminate the employment of their most talented writer (Tim Sullivan) if that writer does not walk mindlessly in lockstep with those in power. I find that to be a scary prospect when looking for unvarnished truth from those who call themselves journalists.

Will Padres coverage stagnate while emphasis on the Chargers' role in San Diego is emphasized by the U-T? Healthy skepticism is a hallmark of a critical mind but so is an openness to something new. I'm curious to see where the U-T goes.

Like Curt Flood before me, I respectfully request (consumer) free-agency

To Whom It May Concern:

I do not know the exact parameters of the agreements between the cable television companies (Cox, Time Warner, etc.) and the government of San Diego. I only know that this market is one that is controlled, Time Warner dominating the county north of the San Diego River while Cox covers the area south of this natural marker.

I do know that I have money to spend but I am being prevented from spending it

I wish to spend money on the product known as the San Diego Padres so that I can watch their baseball games just as my friends do in southern San Diego. But I cannot do this because Time Warner Cable and the newly created Fox Sports San Diego television station cannot find a distribution price to agree upon. I am not afforded the opportunity to switch to a competitor (Direct TV) as my current home resides behind an obstruction to their satellites. Again -- I have money and I want to purchase this product (San Diego Padres games).

If city government grants these companies operating rights in specific zones within San Diego then city government should have the right to call on them to arbitrate for a fair price. If these companies cannot agree upon a price then grant me free agency as a consumer. If they don't want my money let me give it to someone who will take it.

I would like to give my money to Major League Baseball to purchase MLB.TV and I request the opportunity to watch the out of market broadcasts for each team that the San Diego Padres play during the 2012 season. If companies within San Diego cannot figure out a way to accept the money, that I am readily willing to give, then the blackout for Padres games on MLB.TV should be lifted so I can purchase from this competitor.

Respectfully

A Consumer in the city of San Diego

Curt Flood is the reason baseball players are rich and freely move around MLB from team to team. He wrote a letter . . .

Media: All-Star Break shenanigans with Dan Shaughnessy's column of DOOM!

Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe tends to go overboard with everything. Hell, he's the guy who wrote The Curse of the Bambino! Personally, I like Dan Shaughnessy for entertainment value. I'm sure I'd hate him if I were a Red Sox fan -- but I'm not, so the relationship is just fine.

This morning, Dan Shaughnessy fired out a tweet with a link to his latest column titled, What happened to the Red Sox?, and I knew it would be too good to pass up. It was certain to be rife with Mayan prophecy and criticism of Adrian Gonzalez which I never fail to find interesting.

Let's have some fun with Dan Shaughnessy's doom and gloom . . .


 The Red Sox are a trainwreck [sic].

There is no better train-wreck in cinematic history than the one given to us by the creators of The Fugitive with Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones. Actually I can't substantiate that claim. Fugitive was the first film with a train-wreck to pop into my head. It occurred in Chicago. Not Boston. But Tommy Lee Jones went to Harvard . . . which really doesn't matter.

It’s about the third-highest payroll in baseball and not a single playoff game victory since 2008.

The precise date of the Red Sox last win was October 18th, 2008. On this date Nickleback had the only "rock" song in the Billboard 100. This does not make the Red Sox "Nickleback sympathizers" and lovers of all that is douchey in music . . . unless we pretend it does.

It’s about a franchise that has become a parody of itself, led by an ownership group that has lost all sense of accountability.  

I fackin' love parodies and yar outta yar fackin' tree if you don't appreciate a gawd damn pissah of a parody about ow-a Sawx. Accountability. Fackin accountability!

The last-place Red Sox are 43-43 at the All-Star break.

Wait a minute. Doom and gloom over a .500 record at the All-Star break? What the fuck is wrong with Shaughnessy?

Josh Beckett and Jon Lester should be embarrassed. They have come back from the disgrace of September 2011 and done almost nothing.  

I will cut these guys some slack/ Until we bring beer and fried chicken buckets back! And Josh Beckett won the last Red Sox playoff game on October 18th, 2008. Hello? Nickleback?!

Adrian Gonzalez? Six homers at the break. An OBP of .329, with 64 strikeouts and only 23 walks? All this for the bargain price of $154 million? Gonzo has been part of two of the worst collapses in hardball history over the last two Septembers and I’m beginning to think this is not bad luck.

Oh, Adrian. Mopey Adrian. The idea of pinning two September collapses on Adrian Gonzalez is patently absurd. But far be it from me to stop Dan Shaughnessy from doing it. This is what I came for, Dan. Thanks for delivering.

Now Crawford tells us that he eventually will need surgery on the ulnar collateral ligament in his throwing elbow.

Now it's elbow issues for Carl Crawford? I bet he wants to shoot himself in the face over all of these injuries.

Why wait? This is a lost season and it’s not like Carl had any impact last year. There’s no sense rushing to get back to hop aboard this southbound train.

The second best train-wreck in cinematic history occurs in M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable. I can't substantiate this either I just really liked the film. And it popped into my head second.

Excellent work bringing the train metaphor full circle. Around the train-track of life. So to speak.

Happy All-Star break.

Andrew Cashner and elbowing myself in the head

The following post is about Andrew Cashner. The first few paragraphs will do many a thing to dissuade you from this fact. Again. Andrew Cashner.

If I'm ever to find myself in a state of disapproval over an issue of some sort then I will shoot myself in the face. This sort of if-then statement is violent but it serves a purpose. When I want others to know just how strongly I feel, the following if-then statement, might escape from my lips:

I swear to God. If I have to watch another episode of Full House, featuring John Stamos's hair and those insufferable twin baby girls, then I will shoot myself in the face.

But there's an inherent dilemma with such extreme hyperbole; AJM would be using it in front of his daughters who are watching said programming. Mrs. AJM believes this to be a family oriented show and worthy of the family's time. AJM believes another episode could lead to a figurative gun shot wound to the face. AJM will exercise caution both with his use of descriptive epithets in front of children and further use of third person language.

Which brings me to my alternative. Rather than use the blatant imagery expressed above I will instead say, "Blah, blah, blah, then I will elbow myself in the head."

It's not nearly as extreme and the outcome is latent. Let me explain . . .


When people hear you mention self-abuse via elbow they will be forced to mentally question, "Could I elbow myself in the head?" In fact they're likely to attempt the act themselves.

Forming a 90 degree angle, they'll raise their arm, and gently place the flesh covering the ulnar collateral ligament to their temple and they'll say, "A-ha! I can elbow myself in the head."

I'll just smile in the way that people do when they mean to say, "Never mind. You fucking idiot."

But what these people don't realize is that I watch MMA and the side of the elbow is not at all the elbow. The elbow is the point of the elbow and it can be used to inflict serious bodily harm. In order for one to use the point of their elbow to accost one's self, one must violently dislocate their own shoulder to provide the necessary range of motion to inflict the blunt force elbow trauma.

What I have described is violent but subtle as people simply don't understand what I mean. And it doesn't include a gun. Despite the 2nd Amendment of 1791 granting, we the people, the permission to arm ourselves, people don't like guns.

So . . .

If Andrew Cashner's trip to the DL (or any other future injury while starting sends him to the DL) forces Padres management to send him back to the bullpen due to concerns of fragility then I will elbow myself in the head.

Last week Craig Elsten wrote the following in his XX1090 column:

Even if the risk is another arm issue, Cashner’s value as a starter is so much greater than what he offers as a reliever, the reward makes the risk worth taking.  Bad teams don’t have much use for closers and even less for set-up men.

Elsten's conclusion, regarding Cashner's potential value and the nature of bullpen set-up men, is an important one.

Set-up men can be had for next to nothing. Edward Mujica. Ryan Webb. Mike Adams. Luke Gregerson. Heath Bell.

The aforementioned constituted one of the strongest bullpens in major league baseball a couple of years ago and they're all guys off the scrap-heap. The Padres didn't give up much to acquire them.

The Padres certainly did not deal a top prospect, one considered to be amongst the top 50 prospects in all of baseball for one of those bullpen arms. But they did deal that top chip when they sent Anthony Rizzo to the Cubs for Andrew Cashner. Because of the quality dealt for Cashner we are left with no other conclusion than, for this trade to pan-out, Andrew Cashner  must provide value out of the starting rotation.

I agree with Craig Elsten. Run Andrew Cashner back out there. Keep doing it. Do it until he's a mega superstar or until he can literally elbow himself in the head . . . so I don't have to figuratively do it to myself. Even figurative abuse carries its own type of pain.

Lost In Translation: Wilin Rosario talks about Yasmani Grandal's big game

I don't even know who Wilin Rosario is. According to his Baseball-Reference page he's built like a fire-plug (5'11" and 215 lbs), appears to have some power (13 HRs), and he's from the Dominican Republic (the place where Christopher Columbus landed and began subjugating natives).

He's also 23 years old.

This is significant because it probably indicates he has not been speaking English very long (likely 2006 when the Rockies acquired him). But maybe, just maybe, he speaks excellent English but provides odd quotes when he's half naked, wearing a towel in a locker room, and speaking to MLB reporters about a fellow catcher from the Caribbean . . .


After Yasmani Grandal's record breaking Saturday, when the switch hitting catcher's first two major league hits went for home runs from each side of the plate,  the Colorado catcher said the following to MLB reporter, Trey Scott:

And color Rockies catcher Wilin Rosario -- who hit a home run of his own in the fifth -- very impressed.

"I'd never seen that guy. The only thing I can tell you is he's strong, like me," Rosario said. "He's got power, too. He's a good hitter. That sometimes happens."

Wilin Rosario is modest. And completely unaware of history. "That sometimes happens"? Quotes can be really dumb. That sometimes happens.

Could the quote have been presented differently? Let's look at the Colorado wrap, written by MLB reporter, Thomas Harding:

"I'd never seen that guy," Rosario said of Grandal. "The only thing I can tell you is he's strong, like me."

Wilin Rosario is still modest. I like that. A lot. But the superfluous part of the quote was cut-out, a wise decision by Harding. Now, as readers, we have all that is necessary from Yasmani Grandal's rookie catcher counterpart in Colorado.

I also like that I am ignorant to the fact that Wilin Rosario lacks all sense of baseball history which is important. Well, it's not really that important.

Thomas Harding defeats Trey Scott in this round of game recaps! Where is Corey Brock, goddamn it?!

Media: Ripping Kevin Acee's guts out and lighting them on FIRE!

You've followed a link due to an inflammatory title and I would like to tell you that I have lied to you. And I'd like to apologize for my underhanded tactics. The Union Tribune, having minimized our free access and provided a scant 15 page clicks for free, has resorted to provocative titles in order to draw our attention. They too have lied. But they'll give no apology for it. Whereas, I have.

Now that I have reestablished my credibility I want to tell you that Kevin Acee's column this morning is worthy of the 2 clicks against your 15 click allotment -- plus the the month of June is about to conclude, so use 'em up people.

You see, Acee's column reads like a pissy rant from a blogger. This is a good thing. Blogger types call 'em like they see 'em. If it walks like a man who just propositioned a gold digging gynecologist whore then it must be -- well, John Moores. And that's what Acee just did.

Let us examine Kevin Acee's column . . .

The O’Malley family cares about baseball. It will be passionate about the team it owns. It will be involved. It won’t tolerate an empty stadium, which is largely the product of a bad product.

Valid point and reassuring, although the April-August Padres of 2010 takes umbrage with your last point. There was a winning product falling in the woods . . . but nobody there to hear it.

I hope I’m not being wistfully naive.

You are. You're not unlike a five year old girl caring for the Barbie doll that had its head torn off by an older brother who naively believes that the dolly will one day regain a proper neck swivel. It won't. That doll is done.

Admittedly, I see O’Malley ownership through the romantic prism of my youth. For one fantastic year that affirmed a lifelong love of baseball and showed me that the major leagues could be almost as friendly as Little League, I was a beat writer covering the Los Angeles Dodgers.

Are beat writers allowed to be wistfully naive or romantic if they aren't watching the pairing of Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan in You've Got Mail?

Now, all that said about the O’Malley magic, what I really care about is where the O’Malley group is getting its money – and how much of it the consortium will have to invest in the on-field merchandise after being fleeced by John Moores.

Fleeced! Yes! More!!!!!

Look, the almost-completed purchase of the Padres could leave the O’Malleys on food stamps and their group’s ownership might still be an improvement over Moores’ fraudulent indifference.

Stop. You had me at fraudulent indifference. Time to start a website called John Moores' Fraudulent Indifference.

Moores remains a commendable philanthropist and shrewd businessman, but he only used to be a good team owner.

Used to be! Yes! More!!!!!

What he’s done lately is simply scam the people of San Diego.

John Moores: Scam artist! This is honestly awesome. I retract 3 of my derogatory Kevin Acee tweets during the month of June.

He made hundreds of millions off the Petco Park development, had to give away some big-time dough in a divorce, regained control of his team through some questionable turns of events and in the process ripped us off by not paying to field much more than a minor-league version of a major-league team.

Luis Durango and Walter Silva respectfully disagree but keep going. Tell us more.

On its own, the financially based decision to draft Matt Bush instead of one of the surefire All-Star pitchers in 2004 set the franchise back several years.

I am beginning to feel wistfully naive and romantic. I'm a blogger. It is something I'm permitted to do.

But Moores long ago lost interest in the team he once saved.

 Chasing tail will do that to you. What do you want? After redevelopment, the Gaslamp Quarter became a hoppin' place.

And, then, on his way out the door, he essentially takes the $200 million in advance payment from the Fox Sports television deal by including it in the cost of the team.

I hate John Moores!

But I digress.

Hey, Wayne's World references.

The Dodgers won six World Series under the ownership of Walter and Peter O’Malley but did not win a playoff game between their 1988 World Series triumph and the end of the O’Malley reign.

Blah, blah, blah, Dodgers.

All that is ancient history, however.

Thank God.

How ancient?

I don't know. You keep talking about it . . . so, not very?

Golf has made Mickelson awfully rich, and Fowler is extremely wealthy for a guy who sold beer. 

Beer? Tell us more.

We know neither how much money this group has after paying Moores’ high price nor how much they’re willing to spend.

The beer. What about the beer?

The answer to the latter question will determine whether we resume caring about the Padres and whether we continue to revere the O’Malleys.

I care about the Padres but I'm in the minority. I hope things change and that caring ownership is the catalyst. Or beer.

Nice work Mr. Acee. Moores needed to be dragged across the coals.

Cuckoo For Nick Canepa: Hoyt Wilhelm and Knuckleballs

After my initial Cuckoo For Nick Canepa post, written yesterday, the UT promptly released news that the company would begin charging customers for their on-line content produced each day. I don't know that the UT is worth a dime of my money so we'll see how this series progresses.

A couple of weeks ago Nick Canepa wrote an article about the horrible television contract with Fox and the complete lack of progress being made with Time Warner Cable to distribute Padres games to a large segment of San Diego. Definitely a topic worthy of coverage by Nick Canepa.

While the column was timely, I did take umbrage (and I was not the only one) with the following analogy by Canepa:

And things are moving along about as swiftly as a Hoyt Wilhelm knuckle ball, but with very little movement.

There is nothing swift about the speed of a knuckleball in its path to homeplate. It be slow, indeed. Nick Canepa is trying to let his readers know that the contract negotiations are moving slow and he uses something a baseball fan can relate to: The slow moving knuckleball. I get it.

Since when, though, is there a scenario where a knuckleball has "very little movement"? 

Knuckleballs move ALL over the place. They move so much that catchers can't even catch them. They move SO much that the otherwise completely useless Doug Mirabelli found gainful employment because he was the only one who could catch a Tim Wakefield knuckler. Do you even comprehend what I just said? Doug "FREAKING" Mirabelli!

Doug Mirabelli was horrible at the game of baseball but he possessed perhaps one of the rarest skill-sets in Major League Baseball: He could catch the knuckleball. Truth be told I'm pretty sure he sucked at it too, only he sucked less than every other catcher holding down a job in the league. So even the best knuckleball catcher in MLB sucked. Why? Because the knuckleball MOVES!

Let's say you don't believe me about the movement of the knuckleball. Would you believe Hall of Famer, Willie Stargell? And I quoth:

”Throwing a knuckleball for a strike is like throwing a butterfly with hiccups across the street into your neighbor’s mailbox.”

Poetic, no? Why would Pops describe the ability to throw a knuckleball for a strike in such a way? Because it moves. It moves a lot. Knuckleballs move. It is, quite simply, what they do.

We've established that a knuckleball has movement, and as such, using it to describe something that is not moving at all (TV contract discussions) demonstrates an exercise in poor judgement by the writer. But what of the reference to Hoyt Wilhelm?

Hoyt Wilhelm was a knuckleballer during the 1950s. And 60s. And early 1970s. He pitched forever and he did it so well he made it into baseball's Hall of Fame. Its what knuckleballers do. They throw FOREVER.

Wilhelm was special though. He won games starting AND closing*. He was kind of like an early Dennis Eckersley except he didn't throw sidearm and his hair wasn't perfectly feathered. He threw a knuckleball. Which moved a lot. If you call yourself a baseball fan, you should know the name and exploits of Hoyt Wilhelm. I have a 1958 Topps baseball card of Hoyt Wilhelm. I KNOW ABOUT HOYT WILHELM.

How about a more contemporary example of a knuckleballer, though? I get that Wilhelm is the hallmark for those who throw the pitch but maybe an R.A. Dickey analogy might resonate with readers.

At the time Canepa's column was written Dickey was coming off a complete game 1-hitter in which he struck out 12 batters. Using Dickey would have made Nick Canepa look like a genius. You know why? Dickey followed that performance-up with another 1-hitter and struck out 13 batters in that one!

R.A. Dickey is also old. He's 11-1. And old. He's 37. But he's 11-1!

R.A. Dickey also just had a biography released earlier this year. He's kind of had an interesting life. R.A. Dickey also climbed Mt. Kilimanjaro during the off-season. If Nick had used Dickey instead of Wilhelm he could have wrote:

 "Things are moving as swiftly as an R.A. Dickey knuckleball dancing at altitude in equatorial Africa, but with little movement."

Canepa could have even mixed in an allusion to Ernest Hemingway had he used Dickey! Ah hell, what do I know**.

*He also didn't do any of that "1 inning" save crap that is so prevalent today. Hoyt Wilhelm worked.
** I know that I wrote this pretty swiftly on account of it being old news and me having to rush Mrs. AJM to the airport. Sorry if it reads like something Nick Canepa mailed-in.

[EDITED 8:43 am in an attempt to give the appearance that I did not completely "mail it in".]

Cuckoo For Nick Canepa

When I was a kid I would sit down at the table for breakfast with the San Diego Union Tribune in front of me and a bowl of Cocoa Puffs. I would read the sports page cover to cover. The Sports section of the UT was thicker during that time of my life, more to read.

With no CNBC in the old days, adults often read the business section of the daily paper to see how the NYSE performed, feverishly charting their personal portfolios. Baseball box scores were my stock index. As a baseball card collector this was my form of investment tracking. I was going to be rich one day courtesy of my little cardboard gods. Rich from cardboard, huh? I'm moving in two weeks and those cards are moving with me. What a burden those boxes have become.

In addition to the box scores, I also read all of the sports columnists. San Diego Union columnist and editor, Jack Murphy, had passed away years before I moved to San Diego but I read all of the columnists who worked in the path he had blazed. This included Nick Canepa who, incidentally, has been around forever. Nick Canepa is a goddamn institution in this town.

As a kid, I didn't really have opinions of Nick Canepa or the other columnists as writers. I just read and continued to eat the Cocoa Puffs, gradually carving deeper and deeper into the box.

By the time my brother would come down for breakfast the box of Cocoa Puffs or Fruity Pebbles, or whatever other cereal graced our cupboard would be nearly gone. And the brother would be pissed. But I was bigger than him so I paid little mind to his plaintiff wails. With the sports section finished, I started my day.

Older now, I use coffee for breakfast.

I drink coffee, sifting through San Diego's poor excuse for a sports section, and I develop my own opinions on those columnists who proffer their opinions. I don't like Nick Canepa's writing. There's a lot about it I don't like. Sometimes Canepa writes an entire column that is so bad it warrants a complete dissection. Fortunately he doesn't always do this because I simply don't have the time in my schedule to be the UT's watchdog.

For the uninitiated, there is always one guarantee with a Nick Canepa column: It will include at least one pop culture reference that nobody below the age of 40 will understand or a reference that could have been updated to reflect some sort of continuous improvement as a writer. 

I appreciate history as much as anybody but there's something to be said for a writer who can stay up to date with both pop and sports culture. Not everything has to be about how, "Things were better in my day!"

Evolve, that's all I ask.

Nick Canepa doesn't believe in evolution. As is the case, I will regularly take Nick Canepa to task for his crappy writing in a series called . . . Cuckoo for Nick Canepa*!

* Points of clarification: I was Cuckoo, or enthusiastic, for Cocoa Puffs. So I ate the whole box. Nick Canepa's writing drives me cuckoo, or insane. Therefore I will write about the insanity. Just so we're clear about the whole Cocoa Puffs analogy.

You can't always get what you want

I really want to like Orlando Hudson. Let me amend that statement -- I really don't want to dislike guys who play for the Padres. 

I don't care to critique guys I ultimately need to cheer for in order for the Padres to attain success.

Yet here I am, during the week before position players are required to report to Peoria, Arizona and I've already ripped into Orlando Hudson twice. I'm bashing a guy who showed up early to camp!

But it could all be solved quite easily . . .


I guess it all comes down to the roles of those writing the stories: beat writers and columnists.

Perhaps it's not within the purview of beat writers to ask the dirty little questions (see: critical) I have in mind, on account of needing access to ballplayers every day. The columnist (and blogger) can get away with the scathing criticism more readily than the guy covering the beat.

So what is it that I want, you ask? 

I want Orlando Hudson to be asked, not about tossing the ball into the stands with two outs last season, but his comments afterwards regarding it being funny. Orlando Hudson probably thinks it was a benign comment but the truth is that a great deal of animosity towards him was developed when, on a last place team, he was able to laugh it off. Ask him about that.

I want Orlando Hudson to address his comments toward fans who booed Brad Hawpe last season. I love that he stood up for his teammate but I loathe that he called out fans with his condescending and entitled remarks.

I want Orlando Hudson to comment on his Twitter account, although verified as his, was clearly being operated by someone else -- and was ripping into critical fans.

That's what I want. I'm not likely to get it but a fan can dream. The odds are good that I wouldn't like O-Dog's answers anyway. Orlando Hudson, in his insulated little world, appears to simply think the way he thinks. But if he recanted, even a bit, I could get in the guy's corner.

****
On a side note:

I imagine yesterday was the day Orlando Hudson was made completely available to reporters as each of the guys (Corey, Dan, and Bill) submitted a story on the Padres second baseman. I can see Orlando Hudson holding court in the middle of the locker room, talking a mile-a-minute, slapping the rear-ends of new guys like Andrew Cashner and Edinson Volquez as they make it to the showers. I digress.

My point? Look at the variation in quotes from Corey Brock's article and Bill Center's.

Corey Brock:

"I guess when you go out and play hard ... things like that happen. If you don't play hard, it comes back that he don't give a damn, he don't care," Hudson said. "You go out and keep doing what you're doing. I'm not going to change the way I play."

Bill Center:

“I guess when you go out and play hard, things like that happen. If you don’t play hard, it comes back that you don’t care. You go out and keep doing what you’re doing. I’m not going to change the way I play.

 Assuming they were huddled around Hudson at the same time I find that kind of weird. If 'kind of weird' is a bit vague, I mean to say that quote #2 looks cleaned up. I guess the UT is a family fish-wrap now.

Nick Canepa is not unlike a 12 year-old

Last evening, Nick Canepa of the UT opined:

Where’s the hook? Why should the people who spend money for tickets want to watch these Padres? And, if a star develops, will he spend more than a few years here before he becomes too expensive, a la Adrian Gonzalez and Bell? The ship carrying a Tony Gwynn sailing forever on the USS San Diego Discount has sailed.

I find Nick Canepa's reasoning intellectually dishonest. He acts like the San Diego Padres are the only team who fail to keep their players as they become free-agents when in reality it's pretty difficult for any team to do it.

Adrian Gonzalez, acquired for nearly nothing in the winter of 2005, entered the same zip code* as Albert Pujols in terms of his production and proceeded to price himself out of the plans of nearly every major league team. So the Padres did what they had to do and moved him for controllable players. But the Padres did what approximately 25 of the other  MLB franchises would be forced to do. Worth mentioning?

*Maybe not zip code. State?

And since I mentioned Pujols let me also remind Nick Canepa that the slugger's former employer failed to keep him in St. Louis for the duration of his career. The Cardinals are a team with a massive following, sell-out crowds, and money in the coffers yet Pujols was only allowed to stay as long as his contract remained team friendly. Now Albert Pujols is an Angel.

Nick Canepa cites the departure of Heath Bell as another example of a player becoming too expensive. But that's not the truth. Heath bell became too expensive to offer a contract for a third year*. The Padres only wanted to be committed for two years. But why such a short commitment, Nick? Let us count the ways -- he's fat, with declining strikeout numbers, and a large crooked number for his age. Isn't it being responsible for the Padres to find another resource to fill a position that is only utilized for 70 innings per year? In Nick Canepa's mind the answer is clearly no or he would have referenced Huston Street and the flexibility of his contract in terms of both years and dollars.

*At which time he would be 37.

I'm not beyond criticizing my favorite baseball team but let's be honest about it. If Nick Canepa had asked when the Padres were going to start locking-up its younger players (see Cameron Maybin) similar to the way the Tampa Bay Rays have done I'd probably be applauding him right here. Maybe mention Jonah Keri's The Extra 2% and how the Rays have found success with such strategies as did the Indians in the 1990s. And then mention that JOSH BYRNES WAS WITH THE INDIANS DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME! YES! THE GUY IN THE PICTURE OF YOUR COLUMN!!!!

Canepa can't do this though. Perhaps the requisite research is above his pay-grade. Instead he gives us the same old arguments about the Padres when the reality is that the vast majority of teams can't keep players once they pass the threshold of super-stardom. These arguments, read by casual Padres fans, are then taken as gospel and repeated ad nauseum. The angry parishioners want answers and Canepa is their prophet. But they're receiving answers from someone who argues like a 12 year old*.

*From time to time I have the opportunity to work with 12 year-olds. These kids are fun but intellectually they aren't quite ready to put forth the effort to support their opinions -- because it requires work. Eventually they grow out of this condition. Well, most do.

As for Nick Canepa's question regarding why should Padres fans show up this season, I guess my answer would sound something like this: Because I love baseball?*

Absent gross malfeasance by the organization, isn't that reason enough?

*I could have also answered Canepa with more detail. More support of my opinions, if you will.

After the 2011 season he Padres added a bunch of pieces to a team in dire need of pieces and I'm curious to see the new formula in action. 

Under the tutelage of Darren Balsley, will Edinson Volquez return to the form that netted Josh Hamilton in a trade back in 2007? 

Will Yonder Alonso show the left-handed swing tauted as perfect for PETCO park? 

Will Cameron Maybin continue to show the abilities that have fans clamoring for a long term extension? 

Will Chase Headley and Tim Stuaffer continue to make strides forward?

Will Corey Leubke become a name known outside of San Diego? 

Does Carlos Quentin have a swing that plays in PETCO? Is he the anti-Ludwick?

Has the gutted bullpen been rebuilt because it's looking like there's some promise with Street, Cashner, and Boxberger? 

How many of the players from the number one system in Major League baseball (according to Keith Law), will make it to San Diego this summer? 

And I want to see the Padres beat up on the Dodgers, Giants, and Diamondbacks because Idisdain their existence.


I could come up with a few more intriguing questions/reasons but I'm at my threshold for words. Enjoy Fanfest if you're going tomorrow.