The Astros in the AL may not be a new idea

 

Lance Berkman may not like the plan to move the Astros to the American League, but the team's current owner is OK with the switch. And back in 1960, the ownership group that brought Major League Baseball to Houston didn't care which league it was placed in; they just wanted a team.

From The New York Times, Oct. 17, 1960:

The Houston Sports Association, of which [George] Kirksey is the executive secretary, is a twenty-man group. No city is better prepared to introduce big league baseball than is Houston, Kirksey said.

"We have everything ready," he said. "We even have a model of the stadium that will be built once the franchise is ours. We have been planning for four years to go big league. Until about ten days ago, we didn't care whether it was the National League or the American League. But the National League moved faster and with greater sureness, and that's the way we now are committed."

Sarandon on 'Bull Durham'

Cool stuff here from The New York Times in which Susan Sarandon talks about three of her roles, including Annie Savoy in Bull Durham.

Where it all began for Chipper

This isn't a piece of trivia that I had tucked away in my brain, but if you'd asked me which team surrendered Chipper Jones' first Major League home run, I'd have said something along the lines of, "It would have to be the Mets."

And it was. It came, naturally, at Shea Stadium, where he hit 19 long balls in his career. The only places where he hit more were his home ballparks. He has one at Citi Field, hit last September, in 11 career games there to this point. The Marlins' home ballpark (the name keeps changing, so why bother putting one in when it could be obsolete in another year?) has yielded 16 homers to Chipper, a native Floridian, so he's got a chance to hit three or four more there in, presumably, 18 games this year and next before the team moves into its new home in 2012.

It might be worth noting, too, that Chipper's seven homers off of Steve Trachsel are the most he's hit against any pitcher, but three of those came when Trachs was a Cub. The four Trachsel allowed as a Met equal the four Bobby Jones, wearing orange and blue, allowed to Chipper. Rick Reed also allowed four homers, but one was with the Reds.

No run for New York on the offing

The Jets' run may be over, but there is a fabulous George Vecsey column from yesterday that is worth a look. (It was one of those times where I had opened the story in a tab to read it, but then the day got away from me and there it sat, until this morning.) It was written to note how the Jets' 1969 Super Bowl win sparked a run of three championships for New York City in 1969-70, with the Mets and Knicks to follow, plus it has that awesome AP photo above showing Tom Seaver and Dick Schaap on Joe Namath's TV show.

But it's as much about the Mets as it is the Jets and it includes this disheartening passage:

The more I think about it, no miracle could resuscitate the current Mets.

This franchise has exhausted all the good karma from Casey Stengel, Marvelous Marv Throneberry, the sainted Hodges, the mix-and-match tourists of 1969, Mookie’s mad moment in 1986. There is no Seaver among this bunch, and no Payson, either.

And who can argue? There's only one Stengel, but the closest to him might've been Yogi Berra. The late-century/new-century equivalent might be Bobby Valentine.

Throneberry, though not an Original Met (he came to New York from Baltimore in May 1962), is akin to Jeff Conine being Mr. Marlin -- a member of the expansion team who will always be associated with it despite not necessarily putting up impressive numbers.

There are no characters to lighten the mood among the Mets' reserves (Jose Reyes is too good, and a starter).

A Hodges equivalent? Maybe Joe Torre, but he's on his last managerial job, and he's already had his run in Queens.

The Mookie moment? It could've been Endy Chavez's catch in the 2006 NLCS, but the team couldn't capitalize on it.

Johan Santana, as good as he is, can't compare to Seaver. The Mets are still looking for their first homegrown ace since ... Doc Gooden!? (And Mark Sanchez can't match up to Seaver for the Jets, because unlike Seaver, he didn't turn around the fortunes of the franchise. That was more Rex Ryan's touch.)

And no one's ever going to think back upon the Wilpons' tenure as owners with fond memories, now are they?

The one thing the Mets may have is the mix-and-match thing going. Sadly, it's more of the ragtag variety than any semblance of a team. Not unlike the mid-2000s Yankees, the Mets are going out and getting players, but they're not building a team. The Mariners improved by 24 wins in 2009 (from 61 to 85) while the Mets regressed by 19 (89 to 70) because they adopted a new philosophy and stuck to it. Omar Minaya's been preaching a team built on pitching since he got the job, but we've yet to see him stick to that plan with any consistency. He certainly made an effort last winter, but injuries undermined him. This offseason, it's as if that plan has been scrapped.

Is Beckett deal the beginning of the Marlins' end?

I think, on the eve of the 2008 season, as the Las Vegas franchise prepares for its first season after relocating from Miami, the retrospective columns will look back upon this Thanksgiving week as the beginning of the Marlins' quick downward spiral. Yesterday's trade that sent Josh Beckett and Mike Lowell to Boston for shortstop Hanley Ramirez and two other prospects will be seen as the start of the series of events that sent the club on its westward journey. In two short years -- and 50 years after the Dodgers and Giants left New York -- we'll likely be talking about the Marlins' impending move during this holiday week.

As for the current team, Carlos Delgado will be the next to go, probably Juan Pierre after that (to one of the teams that loses out on Johnny Damon). That may be enough of a payroll cut for this season. They won't trade Dontrelle Willis or Miguel Cabrera because they're not owned by the other 29 owners and if Jeffrey Loria decides to sell, he'll need some superstars to keep the value at a decent level. Either that, or he'll need the star power to convince Las Vegas -- or Charlotte or Mexico City or perhaps even Portland, Oregon -- to build a ballpark for him.

At least Loria won't have to worry about spending too much on top free agents -- after this off-season, there won't be many players who want to come to South Florida.

Can the Mets get Delgado? The fact that the teams are in the same division shouldn't matter, as Murray Chass points out. It's not like the Marlins will be competitive enough to be in a "rivalry" with the Mets the next two or three years. Besides, they've done it before, agreeing to pay a good chunk of Mike Hampton's salary when they acquired him from the Rockies and then sent him on to the Braves.

I think, in the end, the Mets will make the move for Delgado. Chass notes that Manny Ramirez can veto any trade now that he's a 10-and-5 player, so despite Ramirez's superior numbers, there are several reasons why Delgado may be a better buy: He's cheaper (per season), he's left-handed, he plays a position of need in New York and the Mets won't have to convince him to play right field, as they will have to do with Cliff Floyd or Ramirez (provided Floyd isn't dealt to Boston in order to get Manny).

It would probably take Yusmerio Petit to get Delgado, but he might be the only big chip or top prospect they'd have to deal. Add in Steve Trachsel (at, I believe, just $2.5 million next year) and you give Florida a solid veteran replacement for Beckett. Considering the apparent depth of pitching prospects the Mets have (Matt Peterson, Brian Bannister, Philip Humber, Mike Pelfrey if he signs), not to mention the emergence of Jae Seo and Aaron Heilman last season and a relatively young Kris Benson, dealing Petit shouldn't deplete them too much. I don't know that he's even the most major-league ready of all the prospects.

In spring training 2004, the Mets wouldn't deal Jose Reyes or Scott Kazmir for Alfonso Soriano, and it appears that stance will hold up as a good assessment of the players' abilities. (Though somewhere between March and July of that year, they somehow decided that while Soriano wasn't worth Kazmir, Victor Zambrano was. Which brings up another idea: Throw in Zambrano for Delgado.) And there was no way they were dealing David Wright, either. (The best assessment of them all.)

But for Carlos Delgado, I'll take the chance that Petit could become Scott Kazmir. At least Delgado has proven himself as a major-league slugger during the past 10 seasons, whereas Zambrano proved that he was an underachieving arm who couldn't catch up to his potential, even if that potential was blown out of proportion.

Round and round he goes, where Beltran lands nobody knows

Nearly five years ago, Dennis Quaid and Jesus — OK, fine, James Caviezel — starred in a baseball movie that wasn't a baseball movie. Frequency was a father/son tale using the Mets' 1969 world championship as a backdrop. Now, another screenwriter has found inspiration in the other Mets championship, the one they won in 1986.

Game 6, which will premiere later this month at the Sundance Film Festival, appears to be another baseball-as-backdrop movie, despite what the title will have you believe. It also may turn out to be more of a Red Sox movie than a Mets movie, according to that aforelinked description on the Sundance site. (And at least this one won't have the in-production backlash that the sight of Jimmy Fallon and Drew Barrymore filming on the field during Boston's celebration in St. Louis has sparked. About that: depending on how it's edited, how can that be believable? Fans don't rush the field anymore these days — the last I can remember was when the Mets clinched the division in '86 — and when they do, a lot more than two make it to the infield.) But with Michael Keaton, Robert Downey Jr., Bebe Neuwirth and Catherine O'Hara, it's got to be picked up and distributed by somebody.

* * *

My gut feeling on Carlos Beltran right now is that he'll go back to Houston. I even signed a petition shortly after the Astros' season ended to plead that he remain in Texas ... before the Mets became a player, of course. I just wanted him to stay far, far away from the Bronx. Obviously, we'll know if he's going back there within he next 31 hours, since he has to sign with the Astros by midnight tomorrow.

But I'm still wary of the Yankees. I won't buy that they're out of it until 1.) Scott Boras names the teams who have made offers, and the Yanks aren't one of them, or 2.) Beltran shows up at a press conference and dons a hat that's not a Yankee hat or a jersey that's not a Yankee jersey.

Murray Chass of The New York Times speculated today that George Steinbrenner might have simply told his staff to say the Yankees had no interest, intending to swoop in at the 11th hour. It was Chass, I believe, who first started the talk last weekend that the Yankees had no interest, and Buster Olney of ESPN.com (and/or The Magazine) has also said he thinks they are going to take a pass. But my thinking is that if they really had made the decision to go after Beltran but try to do it quietly, it would get out somehow, despite Steinbrenner's wishes. There is only a certain number of people who can keep a secret about something before the media gets a hold of it.

There's also been some discussion lately that Beltran's not really worth what Boras is demanding. But a look at the list of similar players (scroll down below the boxes for "Appearances on Leaderboards and Awards") shows one Hall of Famer in Dave Winfield, another power/speed outfielder in Bobby Bonds, and a borderline Hall candidate in Andre Dawson. Most telling, as Tim Kurjian points out in that first link, is that his walks have increased in the last four years while his strikeouts have dipped to the point where he's nearly at a 1:1 ratio. He most likely won't hit 40 home runs as a Met, but he'll get on base and run, and he'll cut off so many doubles in the gap at Shea.

The Mets would probably have to overpay to get him, but that's what they need to do. I'd be happy with it, but I just don't know if it's going to get to that. Houston's my gut feeling, but if we haven't heard of it by Sunday morning, there very well could be a new No. 15 in Queens.

Unless, you know, the Yanks are playing possum.

* * *

Wade Boggs will go into the Hall wearing a Red Sox cap. It wasn't really too hard to predict. It's the right move by the Hall.

Doug Mientkiewicz, however, doesn't understand the concept. He's not giving the Red Sox the ball he caught from Keith Foulke for the final out of the World Series. (Of course, if Foulke were smart enough on his feet, he would've run the ball to first base himself for the final out, keeping it in his glove the whole time.) It would be one thing if Mientkiewicz came up with the Red Sox or maybe even played with them the whole season. I'm more inclined to think that Nomar Garciaparra has more of a claim to the ball than Mientkiewicz, who was only in the game as a defensive replacement. (Apparently Terry Francona learned from John McNamara what can happen when you leave a first baseman in for the final out for sentimental reasons.)

* * *

Since I love to make predictions, here are my quick picks for the NFL's wild-card weekend:

I would like to see the Jets win, but I think with the way they struggled at the end of the season, with Chad Pennington's recovering shoulder and with San Diego at home, it won't happen. Might come close, they might cover, but I think it's the Chargers, 28-24.

In Seattle, I don't like either team. I could go with St. Louis, because they've had the Seahawks' number; or I could go with the home team, because can one 8-8 team beat another three times in one season? If Shaun Alexander can control the clock, Seattle probably wins. But I like St. Louis' weapons and scoring potential as a whole, so I say the Rams, 31-26.

On the semi-frozen tundra of Lambeau Field (gameday high expected to be 35 degrees), I don't have the same misgivings about the Packers-Vikings divisional matchup threepeat. Minnesota has won something like two of its last 12 games outdoors. Daunte Culpepper may do The Roll after a touchdown to Randy Moss, but it's Brett Favre and the Packers who roll on, 38-30.

I'm a fan of the scoring this opening weekend, aren't I? I'm probably not the only one. Take away everything else in the Indianapolis-Denver matchup on Sunday except for three things: Peyton Manning, Jake Plummer and the RCA Dome. Is there any way you can envision Plummer beating Manning inside? Neither can I: Colts, 42-21.

ALCS Game 7: Evil Empire crumbles

Yesterday's games:

Red Sox 10, Yankees 3

Cardinals something, Astros less

Red Sox win series 4-3

Let's face it, this was the game of the year. Sure, my prediction from the start of the postseason turned out to be wrong, but as I said then -- I couldn't see myself calling it until it was proven possible. That is, I couldn't foresee a Red Sox victory, either in the division during the season or in the postseason, until they managed to pull it off once. And now they have. Is this the start of the Curse of A-Rod? It's been 86 years since the Red Sox won a World Series, and 1986 was the last time they even got to one. If they manage to win it all, we'll know one thing: to break the curse, Boston had to go through New York. Knowing that, Red Sox Nation would've been calling for the wild card in 1965. It figures it would take something as monumental and historic as becoming the first team to win a playoff series after losing the first three games. And the Yankees just looked defeated last night. Not physically, on the field, but emotionally, because they knew they had it, and they blew it. Several times.

It had to be clear that the Yankee mystique, that all those ghosts, would fail them this time. Yesterday was Mickey Mantle's birthday, after all. Maybe that's the Yankees' problem (or at least their fans') -- they did not go into yesterday's game saying, "I think they'll win tonight because Brown's due to come up big and Lowe's been horrible all year." They -- particularly New York radio host Mike Francesa -- were saying, "We're not going to lose tonight because it's Mickey Mantle's birthday." That kind of reasoning only holds up for so long.

I wonder at what point last night George Steinbrenner started firing people. You know he wanted to during the game, that's for sure, but is he the kind of guy who decides to sleep on a decision rather than making a knee-jerk move? And is Brian Cashman in trouble because Fox showed him on camera after Damon's grand slam screaming, "Fuck!" from his suite?

There are only so many hours in the day, and I have to work during many of them, but it would've been fun to sit at home all day and listen to the New York talk radio shows. But I'm not going to try to say this any better than Tyler Kepner, who ended his game story in the New York Times with this paragraph:

It was actually happening. The nerd was kissing the homecoming queen. Paper was beating scissors; scissors were beating rock. Charlie Brown was kicking the football. The Red Sox were beating the Yankees for the American League pennant.

And no one can put it better than ESPN.com's Bill Simmons. Well done.

Cardinals-Astros series tied 3-3
I think, in a way, it's good that the Astros didn't clinch yesterday, because today is all about the Red Sox. We'll deal with this outcome after tonight's game.

The Yankees' revisionist history

This is why people hate the Yankees. It's not just that they appear smug and elitist, they are in the ways they skew and manipulate data to make themselves look better. Kind of like the Bush Administration. The following appeared in The New York Times yesterday:

Two Sides to Every Streak

It's not enough that the Yankees dominate baseball history; they have a different way of looking at it.

Everyone else who talks about Atlanta's perennial trip to the playoffs as division champion says the Braves have won 12 consecutive division championships and have appeared in the postseason 12 consecutive times. The Yankees' math is different.

In their game notes for the news media this year, the Yankees have reduced the Braves' achievement by a quarter, putting the number at 9, not 12.

The Yankees, the notes say, "are only the second team in major league history to win as many as six consecutive league or division titles behind the Braves' current streak of nine straight."

In addition, the Yankees "reached postseason play for the ninth consecutive year in 2003, extending the major league record which they share with the Atlanta Braves."

The Yankees' calculator obviously counts from post-1994, the strike year, refusing to recognize the Braves' three consecutive division titles and postseason appearances leading up to 1994. But there were no division champions or playoffs in 1994, so no other team interrupted the Braves' streaks.

Now if the Yankees wanted to say the Braves have finished in first place only nine years in a row, they could be technically right. When the players went on strike in 1994, the Montreal Expos, not the Braves, were in first place. But the Expos were not awarded the division championship.

In the mind of everyone in and around baseball outside of the Bronx, the 1994 season ended in August, with no division champion or postseason, as the article says. Baseball's postseason history jumps from 1993 to 1995. Does anyone doubt that had the Yankees reached the postseason or won the division in 1993 that the notes would put the streak at seven seasons?

When I sent my thoughts out to a friend, he replied thusly:

A rebuttal:

Question: How many years in a row have the Braves finished in first place?

Answer: Nine, from 1995 to 2003.

Q: Did they finish in first place in 1994?

A: No.

Q: Who did instead?

A: The Montreal Expos. (Note: Murray Chass concedes this point in his column below.)

Q: Isn’t finishing first a prerequisite to winning the division title?

A: Yes.

Q: So the Braves did not win the division title in 1994?

A: Yes.

***************************************

That’s enough to illustrate the absurdity of Chass’ point. But let’s continue:

Q: But people say the Braves have won 12 straight division titles?

A: Yes.

Q: So are they ignoring the 1994 season?

A: Yes.

Q: Why?

A: Because there was a strike before the season ended.

Q: But the season came to an end at some point right?

A: Yes.

Q: Who had the best record in the Braves’ division at the time the season ended?

A: The Expos.

Q: Not the Braves?

A: Correct.

Q: So the Expos won the division title?

A: Some say “No” because there was not a postseason.

Q: But there was a season, right?

A: Right.

Q: Even though the season was cut short in August, were any awards given out to the players?

A: Yes. Frank Thomas won the MVP award in the AL, Jeff Bagwell won it in the NL. David Cone won the Cy Young in the AL, and Greg Maddux won it in the NL. Buck Showalter and Felipe Alou were the Managers of the Year. Lee Smith and Rod Beck were the Relief Men of the Year. The Roberto Clemente Award went to Dave Winfield. Bob Hamelin and Raul Mondesi won the Rookie of the Year awards. And Gold Glove winners and Silver Slugger recipients were also named. In fact, Maddux had won it the previous two years, in 1992 and 1993 (but not in 1991), and he also won it again in 1995. In fact, the biography profile of Maddux on mlb.com says that in 1995 he “Dominated the National League once again, winning the Cy Young for an unprecedented fourth straight season.”

Q: So, in calculating streaks, Major League Baseball counts the 1994 season?

A: Yes. If MLB did not count the 1994 season, Thomas, Bagwell, Cone, Maddux, Showalter, Alou, Smith, Beck, Winfield, Hamelin and Mondesi would be very surprised. By the way, Mondesi was one of five Dodgers to win the Rookie of the Year award during the five-year span from 1992 to 1996. On the official Dodgers web site, it states, “During the 1990s, the Dodgers set a record with five consecutive National League Rookies of the Year: Eric Karros (1992), Mike Piazza (1993), Raul Mondesi (1994), Hideo Nomo (1995) and Todd Hollandsworth (1996).” So the Dodgers count the 1994 season in their streaks.

Q: Back to the Braves. Did they finish in first place in 1994?

A: No.

Q: They did not win the division title in 1994, right?

A: Correct.

Q: And baseball was played in 1994, right?

A: Right. The award winners are evidence to that.

Q: So if the Braves were to say that they have a current streak of 12 consecutive division titles, they would be taking advantage of the fact that there was a strike, right?

A: Right.

Q: That seems quite self-serving, don’t you think?

A: Yes. And it’s even far more self-serving than the fact that the Yankees say their nine straight playoff appearances matches the Braves’ streak. Let's be honest about who’s really manipulating history here.

So I came back with the following:

That final point misses one important fact: It is not the Braves' notes that are touting 12 consecutive division titles and postseason appearances, it is MLB and every single media outlet in print, broadcast and on the web. Whereas the Yankees once again have to single themselves out from the other 29 teams.

On top of that, yes, the Braves did not finish in first place in 1994, but that's not what those media outlets say. They say the Braves have won 12 division titles and made 12 straight postseason appearances. Both are true. In 1994, technically no team finished in first place because the season itself was not finished. It came to an end, but it wasn't completed. There is no division championship banner in Olympic Stadium in Montreal (or in San Juan). There were no team records or awards given out. Even the Yankees, who were in first place when the season came to an end, do not acknowledge it.

Those postseason awards given to individual players were doled out on the insistance of the players association, which wanted to make sure all its members with clauses for winning Cy Youngs and MVPs and finishing in the top five in the voting got their contractual bonuses from the teams. At the time, there was a big debate about whether or not the awards should be given, but it was the players association that pushed for it.

But the fact that the Braves did not win a division title in 1994, while true, doesn't interrupt their streak. In years in which division titles have been won, the Braves have won the last 12. In years in which postseason games have been played, the Braves have played in at least one series in each.

Obviously, the points about Maddux and the Dodgers hurt my arguments. But had those awards not been given out in 1994, Maddux would still be considered to have won three straight Cy Youngs, and the Dodgers would've had four straight Rookies of the Year. But they're also different lists. If you go to a list of Cy Young winners, you can count Maddux four consecutive years. On a list of Rookies of the Year, you can count five straight Dodgers. But on a list of division champions, you can count 12 straight Atlanta teams; and on a list of postseason teams from 1990 to 2003, there's only one team that appears in every year that had playoffs.

I can't believe I'm defending the Braves so strongly here, but there's only one team I loathe more than Ted's (former) boys.

I have a feeling this isn't over yet, either.