Pitching History?

What started out as a Rosenthal Rumor has ended up as one of the biggest trades I have ever seen. The Phillies will get Roy Halladay from Toronto and send Cliff Lee to Seattle. The prospects involved in the deal, which I will discuss in a minute, are among Philadelphia and Seattle's best. Also today, the Red Sox signed John Lackey to a five-year deal. It's three of the best pitchers in the game, all of them likely among the top 10 that most teams would choose to start a playoff game, and they have all jumped to the tops of other rotations.*

I'll start with Halladay to Philly, because, to me, it's the most interesting part of the trade. The Phillies give up Cliff Lee, the man who led their lackluster rotation to contention for the World Series, and their second, third and fourth ranked prospects by Baseball America, for Halladay. Those prospects (Kyle Drabek, Michael Taylor, and Travis D'Arnaud) were rumored to be the asking price for Halladay last summer. This begs the question, why not just trade those guys for Doc straight up?

We can only assume that some sort of salary cap mandate led to Lee's dismissal, but wow, they wouldn't give up Drabek and J.A. Happ for Halladay, but now they'll surrender Drabek and Lee? Is one year of Cliff Lee at $8MM really something a World Series contender should need to move? Why not just send the prospects to Toronto, add Halladay to Lee and Hamels and find some other way to move a few mil. To put it in perspective, the team just gave Placido Polanco three years and $18MM. Polanco will be 34 this season and has a .348 career OBP. Jamie Moyer will also be making $6.5MM this year. Are you telling me that you can't find a cheaper alternative to Polanco that would enable you to keep the guy who beat the Yankees twice in the World Series? There may be something I'm not getting here, but it doesn't add up.

The Mariners give up prospects, Phillippe Aumont, Tyson Gillies, and a third player rumored to be J.C. Ramirez for Cliff Lee. As Dave Cameron at U.S.S. Mariner put it:

"The three prospects the M’s gave up? None of them are top notch, elite guys. They all have potential, but their risk-reward profiles do not put them in the top tier of minor leaguers...This is, quite frankly, a heist. The Mariners are getting a Cy Young caliber pitcher for some decent-but-not-great prospects. They aren’t giving up Morrow. They aren’t giving up Saunders. They aren’t even giving up Triunfel. And yet, they walk away with one of the five or six best pitchers in baseball...Seriously, dance in the streets. Build a bust of Zduriencik and place it on your mantle. Name your first born son Jack and your daughter Jackie. When this becomes official, hug someone. This trade is that good."

In a day that added Halladay to Hamels and Lackey to Lester, the Mariners may have ended up with the league's top 1-2 punch in Lee and King Felix. A reasonable contract to Chone Figgins has added to an already stellar defensive club, and, coupled with the Angels losses, the Mariners are poised to make a run at the playoffs. It's pretty impressive given the bleak outlook of the team only a year ago.

For Toronto, I see a clear win, given that the got what they initially wanted for Halladay, who they really had to move. Drabek is supposedly the top prospect arm they needed, and Michael Taylor, who they will reportedly flip for stud hitting prospect Brett Wallace, is clearly a legit return. The package of Drabek, Wallace and D'Arnaud seems like what you should ask for for even one year of a top starter like Halladay.

The day's other pitching transaction has the Red Sox bringing in John Lackey. It seems fitting that his signing is overshadowed by a bigger move. His career has really been extraordinary, considering his success since he first came up and continued ability to dominate against American League lineups, but he garners less attention than he has deserved. It's a great deal for Boston, and when you consider that they could now trade a Buchholz or Kelly for a hitter like Adrian Gonzalez, the A.L. East should really be out-of-this-world good.

*You could argue that Lackey may technically not be "at the top" of Boston's rotation, but I tend to think of a pitching rotation as more linear than up and down. Beckett and Lester may start games one and two of the season, but a "third starter" has just as much opportunity over a season to dominate. And Lackey should be the best third starter in the league.

A few Dodgers notes on this day of pitching transaction greatness. As we look at these top starters being moved, including Lee for salary reasons, I can't help but turn my thoughts to Chad Billingsley. Some people have compared his path to Lee's, who struggled to the point of being sent to the minors only a year before winning the American League Cy Young. If you look at Billingsley's career numbers, there should be no reason for anything but optimism for a young, cheap starter to take form as one of the National League's best pitchers. His second half struggles were just those, and it seems silly to me to take the leap of no faith and assume he won't bounce back.

And Finally... True Blue L.A. offers a funny --and terrifying for Dodgers fans -- piece about a plan to bring back Darren Dreifort. Just look at all that money that the Dodgers will be paying all those guys for all those years.

Cleveland Connection

NFL Network is doing its part to remind me of the Steelers good times with Steelers highlights from 1972 to 2008 airing around the clock. With the Thursday night game against the Browns being past, so no reason to promote that anymore, I wonder if they really are doing Steelers fans a favor by showing us just how good Troy Polamalu and Aaron Smith are. Troy made more plays in the 2008 playoffs than the whole secondary has through 13 games this year. And that total includes all the plays that he himself made in the parts of five games he has played this year.

I'm watching a replay of the 2002 Wild Card game against the Browns in which Browns running back William Green had 30 yards rushing on 25 carries, a number that is inflated by a long run of 23 yards. Aaron Smith, combined with then rookie Casey Hampton, absolutely dominated the line and has been doing so ever since.

My thoughts about the 2009 team are closely connected with that game. The most pertinent connection , of course, is that Browns offensive coordinator Bruce Arians now holds that position for the Steelers. In the game, Arians directed Holcomb to throw the ball 43 times (45 if you consider a sack apiece from Joey Porter and James Farrior) and Holcomb did so with such success (429! yards and three TD's) that it took a furious Steelers comeback to win, 36-33. The Browns exploited a weak Pittsburgh secondary that allowed them to move the ball without the ability to run.

Three things:

1) The Steelers have Rashard Mendenhall and a line that apparently can run block despite being the worst in the league at blocking for the pass, they should run the ball. When Rashard runs for five yards on 1st down and four on 2nd, he should probably get the opportunity to get one on 3rd.

2) Without Troy, the Steelers have a bad secondary like they did in 2002. Deshea Townsend has been a nickel back since then, and the guys ahead of him, Ike Taylor and Inexplicably Small Play Willie Gay, are playing like Chad Scott and Dewayne Washington. I have to assume to the weakness of the secondary makes it much more difficult to rush the quarterback.

The defensive makeup of the 2002 Steelers is eerily similar to this year's team, especially when you consider the missing stars, Smith and Polamalu. The defensive line was excellent against the run with Smith, Hampton and Kimo Von Oelhoffen. The 2009 version that features Brett Keisel and now, finally, first-rounder Ziggy Hood, along with Hampton has been very good as well, particularly Keisel. The linebackers are similarly strong, with Joey Porter and Jason Gildon and now Lamarr Woodley and James Harrison. I think both guys in 2009 have been spectacular, but don't have the sack totals because of the other team's ability to pass efficiently against the secondary. Farrior has missed more plays than we would expect, so it's possible he has begun to decline. On the other hand, when he gets burned on a quick in route by Ray Rice, emphasis on quick, I have a hard time blaming him. Lawrence Timmons has been a scapegoat to some, but I think he does enough stuff that I've never seen a linebacker do that he is more than helpful to the D.

3) The quarterback of the Steelers is Ben Roethlisberger, not Tommy Maddox or Kelly Holcomb. At receiver, Dennis Northcutt and Andre Davis don't even compare to Hines Ward, Santonio Holmes and Heath Miller. Because of these differences, the Steelers should be an offensive juggernaut, but they aren't, and for that I blame Bruce Arians. The biggest issue appears to me to be the offensive line, and unless I don't know something about the NFL coaching structure, the offensive coordinator is ultimately responsible for the performance of every offensive player. If he can't design plays to utilize the abilities of the aforementioned Pro Bowlers and Super Bowl MVP's, he is not qualified to be the offensive coordinator of a team that is generally expected to contend for championships.

For comparison, the Browns, playing against the Steelers' defense, which is pretty good, were able to design a successful game plan around a dynamic return man/wildcat general, Joshua Cribbs (PAY THE MAN!), and a great left tackle, Joe Thomas. Two players on the offensive side of the ball are better than replacement level for NFL players, but they won because they found a weakness in the defense and beat it enough times.

The Steelers, on the other hand, allowed Big Ben to get sacked eight times. They allowed Cleveland, without Shaun Rodgers, to sack the quarterback eight times. The offensive line deserves 100% of the blame, and Bruce Arians deserves even more for calling deep passing plays out of the shotgun on third and one.

When that happens, the offensive line isn't good enough AND the play calling isn't giving the quarterback an opportunity to make plays.

I started writing this to make note of the fact that Arians' presence now is funny considering the way the playoff game went in 2002. Ultimately, they threw the ball unbelievably well against a bad secondary on a sloppy field, but could never run the ball. I guess it got me thinking more about this team, and I couldn't help but think, this team can run the ball. They won't make the playoffs this year, and I think that's fitting considering the talent discrepancy they would face against any possible playoff opponents.

But, going forward, I think that it's clear that they should be able to be better offensively, and that starts with Arians. Defensively, they lost Troy and Bryant McFadden from last year's excellent secondary, so that will be something else to address in the off season. With Hampton and Ryan Clark as impending free agents, it could be an exciting time going towards the draft with a higher than usual pick.

Dock Ellis and The Clippers

The good people at No Mas really outdid themselves with this video about Dock Ellis' no-hitter that was thrown while under the influence of LSD. They are known for blending of sports, art and culture, and this is another fine showing. For some reason I feel the urge to say he was "allegedly" on LSD, but I can't remember who disputed it or why they did, so I'll just let it be.

How could Dock Ellis and the Clippers be connected, you might ask? But of course, Ellis threw his no-hitter against the Padres, in San Diego, the former home of the Clips.

So from Clipper Blog, I present this. I have never been sure what to make of certain basketball metrics, but to be grouped with those teams says something to me about the quality of players on the Clippers. While this is by no means a Clippers Blog, you can be sure that I will be providing important information on them when necessary. And, when it turns out that this far into the season the Clippers rank among the top five in a category called "Overall Rating," I would deem this very necessary. If and when Blake Griffin and Eric Gordon get to play together, you'll thank me for letting you know now.

I have the rare pleasure tonight of watching the Steelers with another Steeler fan, so I'm sure I'll have some thoughts

Harden Signs with the Rangers

According to MLB Trade Rumors, the Rangers signed former 17th round pick, Rich Harden, today. Ed Price of AOL FanHouse reports the deal is for $6.5 million this year with $3.5 million more in incentives. There is also an $11MM mutual option for 2011, so neither side is bound to more than one year.

A team that has had significant financial questions, fails to sign its first-round pick, Matt Purke, has responded with a legitimate contract to possibly the best free agent pitcher of the year. It is a perfect move from the team that had Ben Sheets, another injury-riddled Ace (not to be with confused with an "ace," who gets a lot of wins and may have a memorable post season moment) just a year ago.

I just can't say how much I like this move for Texas. They did themselves a favor by moving Kevin Millwood and his contract, and they used the money to acquire the kind of pitcher that, if healthy, can make them a contender.

As we know in baseball, there may not be a salary cap, but to most teams, money questions are always present. With every move, a team takes a risk that is leveraged against the possible reward. In the current market, teams are being forced to pay too much for talent that has little chance of being worth it. Some still just overvalue grity veterans and RBI's, but others are being forced to overpay for the best available players in a weak free agent crop, like is the case with Randy Wolf and Milwaukee. Guys like Jason Kendall, Pedro Feliz, and Millwood are getting millions of dollars and multiple years. With Harden, every inning he pitches is nearly guaranteed to be top-quality. Even if he only pitches for half a season, he'll likely be a big help.

When the deal went through today, I couldn't help but smile when I read that, "The medical info checked out." It's a pretty common note when signings become official, but it's funny to me that with every other contract that Rich Harden has signed, his medical info has, presumably, checked out. He's thrown more than 150 innings in a season just once in his star-crossed career, so who knows what will happen, but it's impressive that the Rangers took such a high-upside chance.

If only another owner of another team that, one that plays in Los Angeles (not Orange County), would sell the team so someone else could make a good signing like Rich Harden or Ben Sheets or John Lackey or C.C. last year, that'd be great.

Lack of Diversity in Baseball

While reading Diamond Leung's fantastic blog, Diamond Notes, I came across a very interesting snippet from San Francisco Giant prospect, Garrett Broshuis -- a player I can admit I have not heard of -- but who's perspective I now value. In his prospect blog for Baseball America, he makes note of the stunning lack of diversity at the Winter Meetings in Indy.

It's an issue I think about constantly, and it's cool to see people within the industry taking note as well. As Broshuis says, the diversity of players during his minor league experience has been particularly rewarding.

His premise is that he would expect a majority of people in baseball to be male, given that the sport is played by men, but he wonders why women, in particular, don't occupy more positions given the amount of men who work in baseball that don't have playing experience.

He goes on to notice that not only are women few and far between, but there are not many African-American, Hispanic or Asian people either. Sure, his example is anecdotal in nature, but it's impressive to me that a player, someone who is paid to play, not necessarily philosophize about baseball, has noticed and given some good thought to the situation.

He wonders if people from South or Central America are back in their native countries during the offseason, possibly working in Winter Leagues or scouting, but his message is clear: while the minor leagues are stocked with players from diverse backgrounds, it is noticeably not that way among front-office types.

From my time working at and learning about Major League Baseball, I have learned that domestic diversity is at a troubling low right now. With the number of African-American players at approximately eight percent in MLB, the league has taken steps, most notably with the RBI program, to change he trend, but there is still tremendous work to be done.

To Broshuis' observation of homogenity among management in baseball, I'm not sure there is one explanation, except that many in baseball still do things "the old way," and that way has not always been one concerned with progress. On the other hand, it is the sport that gave us Jackie Robinson and the breaking of the color barrier in major sports, and I do believe that baseball is considered to be proactive in attempts to diversify compared to other leagues and employers in general.

It's not always the most important to find all the answers, and in these cases it's just refreshing to see someone like Garrett take note and share it with those who want to read it. I wouldn't have bothered to suggest if I were him that, "Perhaps those from diverse groups either are less qualified or don't want to work in baseball," but I would commend him for noticing and taking a moment to wonder, why?

Highest Paid Players

MLB Trade Rumors linked to this interesting piece from Wezen-Ball on the history of baseball's highest paid players. It's a fascinating read that really does a nice job exploring the circumstances of each contract at the time, as well as the impact on the future of precedent-setting deals.

One thing that immediately jumped out to me is that there are surprisingly few "busts." One can argue that giving pitchers long-term, record setting contracts is inherently risky, and some may feel that the impact of one player -- a pitcher being more injury-prone that most position players -- never can, by the nature of pitching once every five games, be worth it. But, Mike Hampton aside, I was surprised by the overwhelming majority of the players on the list being relatively worthy of deals that would shape the market in the future.

Obviously, the market may have plateaued with A-Rod's $252 million deal in 2000 and his $275 million extension with the Yankees seven years later. As they point out, there wasn't a player more worthy of the biggest contract in baseball when he signed the first deal, and probably not another one when he signed the second in '07. It is, however, significant that the size of his deals were both likely higher than market value. That is, even for the best player in his prime, with the opportunity to reach new heights, Scott Boras did a nice job setting a standard that few can rationalize touching again for the foreseeable future.

The other thought that jumped into my head looking at the list, and this one was far less surprising, was the amount of players linked to performance enhancing drugs. I am no scientist, and I don't claim to know exactly what impact steroids have on a player's performance, but it certainly looks like many were rewarded with huge deals before, during or following years aided by illegal -- if not against baseball's rules -- drugs.

As I look at the current free agent crop, it is apparent that we don't have any candidates to join this list. And I'm not sure if anyone will any time soon. The point is that history has shown that the best player doesn't always get the most money. No, all it takes is a Tom Hicks, with help from a Scott Boras, to make history.

The combination of the recent economic climate, the implementation of drug testing, and apparent initiative to seek market inefficiencies has led team's to find other ways to fill their rosters than outspending the competitor's. On the other hand, some teams are still hamstrung by past mistakes (Vernon Wells, Barry Zito, Gary Matthews, Juan Pierre/Andruw Jones/Jason Schmidt), so who knows what will happen in the future.

Yanks/Tigers/Snakeheads Blockbuster

Some quick thoughts on the blockbuster trade between the Yanks, Tigers and D'Backs that appears to be nearing completion.

According to the report:

The Yankees get Curtis Granderson, the D'Backs get Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy, and the Tigers get Max Scherzer, Daniel Schlereth, Austin Jackson, and Phil Coke.


-At first glance, I love what the Tigers did. They get Austin Jackson (.300/.354/.405 in triple-A last year) to take over center field right away. While he may not equal Granderson's ability to hit (against righthanders, at least), he should be adequate defensively and could eventually be as good a hitter.

In giving up Granderson, the Tigers were able to shed salary (he is in the middle of a 5 year/$30.25M deal that has a 2014 club option), and get value for a player that suffers so greatly against lefties, he should probably be considered for a platoon. Keith Law has suggested this, and his numbers certainly back it up. His OBP is .367 in his career against righties and only .270 against lefties. His OPS .894 v. RHP, .614 v. LHP. Those numbers don't look good for an everyday leadoff hitter.

In addition to getting Jackson, I believe the biggest gain for the Tigers is Scherzer. The 11th overall pick in 2006, he is exactly the kind of power arm that the Tigers covet. In 226 professional innings, he has struck out 240 batters with a 3.68 ERA. The Tigers clearly wanted to sell high (or relatively high, after his second half decline) on Jackson, but I doubt I would even take Jackson for Scherzer straight up.

Schlereth (the Tigers presumably now assume the league lead in "Sch's") was the 26th pick overall in 2008 and should be a nice lefty addition to a Tiger bullpen that struggled with injuries and depth last year.

-It's really a typical move from the Yankees perspective. Granderson's contract is no object to them, and while people have soured some on Austin Jackson as a superstar (he was ranked as New York's top prospect going into 2009), it still shows a clear tendency to undervalue young players in favor of more well-known, "established" players. They may know something we don't, but it doesn't surprise me one bit that the Yankees trade a once-, if not still, highly regarded prospect for a big money player with noticeable flaws and four more years left on a contract.

Giving up Ian Kennedy, to me, is of little consequence, because they had no intention of using him. Just like they have with Joba Chamberlain and Phil Hughes, the Yankees have managed to build unrealistic hype around top prospects before crushing such value by chronic mismanagement. Remember when Brian Cashman wouldn't trade Ian Kennedy and Melky Cabrera for Johan Sanatana? Or when Chamberlain and Hughes were off-limits in talks for Roy Halladay? Well, those are only good strategies if you intend to get contributions from them, or trade them, for value that exceeds Roy Halladay and Johan Santana. From the looks of things, they haven't gotten the contributions, as Chamberlain has been yanked in and out of the rotation and Hughes has been pushed to the bullpen. And there is no way we can say that getting Curtis Granderson comes close to the impact of Halladay or Santana.

-For the D'Backs, it doesn't make much sense to me to trade Schlereth and Scherzer for Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. I guess they assume that's two above average starters -- with the potential for Jackson to be dominant in a return to the NL -- for one and a reliever. I, personally like Scherzer more than anyone else in that deal, even without considering that he is cheaper and younger than Jackson.

Is it ever (Andre) Miller Time?

When the Blazers signed Andre Miller to a three-year deal at about seven mil/year, I knew it was a bad decision. While he has maintained decent assist numbers throughout his career, he is a horrendous shooter and, I've concluded, there may not be a single team for which his style of play would be helpful. Apparently, Portland agrees with me.

The Blazers, in particular, were poised to open up this season with a guard rotation of superstar Brandon Roy, Rudy Fernandez, Steve Blake and last year's top pick, Jerryd Bayless. That quartet is formidable in and of itself, but then throw in wing players Nicholas Batum, Martell Webster and Travis Outlaw, and you have seven players who have shown they play at a high level together. A level so high that they were the fourth seed in the Western Conference last season.

With essentially seven non-big men deserving playing time, you would think that adding another guard to the mix would be counterintuitive. Even if you wanted to argue that Miller is a good player, which I would not, a better case could be made that he simply doesn't fit.

I was going to write about how Kevin Pritchard really surprised me with such a contract that didn't make much sense. But, true to form, he is back to being the stud GM that he is and, having realized his mistake, he will probably get some picks or nice pieces for Miller and his three-year deal.

To be honest, I have sympathy for Pritchard. I was excited when the Clippers acquired him a few years ago, and it became apparent that he is one of those players who is worse than his numbers suggest, even when his numbers suggest he isn't even that great. If they have indeed, decided to move on from the ill-fated Miller experiment, I say hats off the the Blazers, as addition by his subtraction will be in full effect. Any return more than that will just be icing on the cake.

Sterling v. McCourt

Yesterday I alluded to the notion that Frank McCourt actually might be a worse owner than Donald Sterling. I could probably be convinced that Sterling is a worse person, but as an owner, Sterling is better, and it's not really close.

First of all, the claims about Sterling's racism are serious, and the fact that he, as a landlord, has the ability to affect people's lives is truly scary. For this argument, though, I'll focus on each owner's direct impact on his team, and by extension, their fans.

To me, there are three main responsibilities of an owner, they are: providing the financial support to the front office to field the most competitive team possible, providing support (also mainly financial) to the employees of the organization, and representing the company (team) positively in the community.

While none of these are technically legal obligations, save for the laws of running a company, they are unwritten codes that are accepted throughout sports. Because of Anti-trust exemptions and the fact that a majority of franchises receive public funding, it is expected that owners respect these codes of conduct. While I have little sympathy for fans who think players owe them something -- usually on the basis of said athletes' higher salaries -- I do believe that owners have an obligation to the community.

Here I will compare how these two men stack up against each other, based on the aforementioned criteria:

Support for Employees of Organization:

It is impossible to completely separate this category from the "fielding the best team" one because, let's face it, most employees of an organization -- and that includes players, coaches, front office -- are happier when the organization wins. Sure, it's possible to have a miserable work environment while some within it are prospering. Hell, I had some miserable times at MLB while Bud Selig was pulling in millions. But, essentially this category is about who values the process more. Which owner understands what it takes to build and sustain a winning organization. Frank McCourt has allowed this to happen. I can't believe I linked to Plaschke, but he points out a pretty classless act. Obviously one anecdotal example an argument does not make, but his history of being cheap is well documented.

Meanwhile, Sterling has stuck with GM/coach Mike Dunleavy for far longer than most owners would have, presumably because he understands that Dunleavy deserves a chance to win with a healthy team. He also just spent a ton of money on a nice new practice facility that has drawn praise from many who have been there.

Advantage: Sterling

Providing Resources to Support Competitive Team:

The most important aspect of ownership is putting good players on the court or field. To do this, an owner must invest in front office types who give them the best chance to do so. People have qualms with Mike Dunleavy the coach, but Mike Dunleavy the G.M. is far superior to Ned Colletti. Even if we assume that Colletti is hamstrung financially by McCourt, and it certainly looks that way, at least recently, he has made some big, bad signings that haven't helped the team. Juan Pierre and Jason Schmidt, in particular, had little chance of working out, and they didn't. His fetish for veterans has led him to trade young players with upside (Edwin Jackson, Dioner Navarro) for lousy veterans that perform at or below replacement level. He gets a pass on Andruw Jones because many viewed the short-term deal as one with potential. These are not isolated events, this is a philosophy that Frank McCourt has supported in his general manager since he hired him.

Dunleavy, on the other hand, has made savvy business decisions that has yielded a core of Eric Gordon (Superstar in the making), Chris Kaman (elite center, underpaid for his production), Al Thornton (14th pick, one of the steals of his draft), DeAndre Jordon (second round STEAL), and Marcus Camby, who he got for nothing, literally. He gets only some credit for landing the number one pick this year and selecting Blake Griffin.

McCourt has made countless decisions that have been financially motivated, most of which have hurt the team.

Sterling has always claimed that he would be willing to pay for the right player, and his record really has supported that. If you can stop reading Bill Simmons for just one moment and think logically, he has been an excellent owner for the last few years. EXCEPT...

Representing the Team Positively in the Community:

Both are big losers in the category. To even be associated with with this
bitch (no, not Posh Spice, the evil one on the left) is pretty bad. And in all of the divorce proceedings, he certainly comes off better than she does. But his support of constantly rising ticket prices and lack of support for the financial and competitive stability do reek of complete betrayal of the fans who care so much about the team.

Sterling's alleged racism and utterly inappropriate tirade in the locker room last year are unacceptable. He seems like a selfish and ignorant person. But, at the end of the day, he does more to help his franchise than the Cheap Man. I really don't know how else to put it, and to a nation of sports fans who disparage the Clippers, with or without cause, I can't think of a more damning indictment of the Dodgers owner.

All-Time Low?

I've been meaning to get back into this for a while, and I see no more appropriate occasion than this.

Basically, the Dodgers decided that neither compensatory draft picks nor, in the case of Randy Wolf and Orlando Hudson, above-average players on one-year deals, were worth the relatively low potential cost of their services. That both were likely to decline arbitration is academic because either one would help the club in 2010 if they decided to accept.

Jon Weisman has made the point a few times that not every decision the Dodgers make can be viewed through the scope of the ownership situation and impending divorce, but today's news, to me, is indefensible. Jon and Eric Stephen at True Blue L.A. both gave their takes on the news, and while they express varying levels of disgust, there really isn't much to say. Disenfranchisement may not be the right word, but it really feels like Dodgers fans who pay attention are aware of the chronic mismanagement of the situation, yet must accept powerlessness over it.

For a moment, I began to draw parallels to my beloved Clippers, a team that is routinely ripped for making decisions based on financial rather than competitive reasons. But then I realized, Donald Sterling is actually a better owner than Frank McCourt.

That's right, Donald Sterling does more to help his franchise win that Frank McCourt. And it's not even close.

Of all his faults, letting Bobby Simmons leave as a free agent was then, and is certainly now, a sound decision. Say what you will about Baron Davis, but there is no chance that McCourt will sign his baseball equivalent (John Lackey, Matt Holliday, Jason Bay) this winter.

For a regime that is best known for shortsighted decisions that have even cost it in the short term, today's events are an all-time low.

I'm back. Unfortunately, so, for now, is the nightmare that is Frank McCourt.