Jessica Mendoza versus John Kruk: Tale of the Tape (psst...spoiler alert: it's no contest)

OK, tale of the tape, Mendoza versus Kruk:

Intellectual Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. The average IQ level in the booth goes up by 30-40 points easily with this move alone, we'll get to the Boone - Schilling trade-off later. Mendoza, a Stanford grad. Kruk, IDK room temperature IQ maybe?

Visual Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. Not that this is, or should be that important because the camera faces in the opposite direction 99% of the time, but I'm just saying.....again the Q-rating, or whatever measures this sort of frivolousness just went through the roof.

Auditory Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. This was the one area where Kruk may have had a shot to win, but he has't really offered much to the broadcast in years. Other than a certain self-deprecating, Uecker-esque appeal to his career -- which was actually pretty good -- there's only so many beer-swilling, crotch-grabbing locker room stories one can slip in to a baseball broadcast without detracting from the game. Mendoza has transitioned almost seamlessly from the softball side to the baseball side, leaving behind the urge to present opinions with a "this is how we did it in softball" caveat. She gets the game of baseball as if she was the one who had Kruk's career and presents a well-rounded, intelligent viewpoint nine times out of ten.

Easier to listen too, easier to watch, easy decision to make. Mendoza by unanimous decision.

As to the Boone for Schilling trade-off, neither one is particularly easy to listen to. Schilling gets removed for shooting his mouth off  too often outside the booth. Instead of putting down the gun or removing the ammunition, he just kept shooting himself in the foot.

And he'll probably blame anybody or anything but himself for the removal. Too bad. Some people live in houses without mirrors. 

from Big Story:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ba4005862c14acc8d321c01d2741e0f/jessica-mendoza-joins-sunday-night-baseball-full-time

Jessica Mendoza joins 'Sunday Night Baseball' full-time

Jessica Mendoza wonders what she'd be doing during the upcoming Major League Baseball season if not for some events out of her control.
The retired softball star was scheduled to call two Monday night MLB games late in 2015 for ESPN and hoped to get a regular gig this year, but figured she might need to wait longer for a slot to open up.
Instead, six days after her debut, she leapt onto the network's showcase platform of "Sunday Night Baseball" — and hasn't left since.
ESPN announced Wednesday that the 35-year-old Mendoza is now a permanent fixture in the Sunday prime-time booth. She'll join another new analyst, Aaron Boone, alongside returning play-by-play voice Dan Shulman.
They replace Curt Schilling, who moves to Monday, and John Kruk, who returns to "Baseball Tonight."
"It's just crazy when I look back, and literally less than six months ago I had no idea what was going to happen after the Monday night games," Mendoza says.
Just like that, she's the most prominent woman calling national games for a major men's sport — one of the few in the booth, not limited to sideline reporter. It's an ascension that seems to have happened blindingly fast, and yet it was also a slow and steady climb.
An Olympic gold medalist and the sport's premier hitter, Mendoza found herself needing a new career when softball was dropped from the Summer Games. The Stanford alum joined ESPN in 2007 and didn't give much thought to calling baseball until the following year, when Kruk took part in Women's College World Series coverage.
Mendoza saw how knowledge of one sport could translate to the other. Still, she acknowledged, historically there was just "one-way traffic" — her father, a baseball coach, would guide her softball teams, but a woman typically wouldn't instruct baseball players.
She later did some sideline reporting on men's sports and studio work for "Baseball Tonight." In June, Mendoza became the first female game analyst for a men's College World Series telecast.
Meeting with senior coordinating producer Phil Orlins in April, she was eager to work games but wary of seeming like a gimmick. Mendoza remembered watching in 2012 when former U.S. teammate Michele Smith appeared on a nationally televised MLB game on TBS and "feeling like she was a guest."
She dryly describes how she didn't want her male colleagues to promote her presence in the booth: "We have a female with us today, yay."
But Mendoza came away from that meeting confident ESPN was serious about her long-term prospects as an MLB game analyst. Not that she ever imagined a spot on "Sunday Night Baseball" could come anytime soon. She laughs in recalling that when she attended a Sunday night game early last season to observe the crew, she felt like a total groupie.
On Aug. 24, she called the Monday night matchup between the Cardinals and Diamondbacks. The next morning, Schilling posted then quickly deleted a tweet comparing Muslims to Nazis. ESPN pulled him from that Sunday's game and replace him with Mendoza.
She couldn't eat, couldn't sleep — squeezed by the pressure that her performance could sway whether other women received future opportunities to call men's sports.
"I knew even the smallest mistake, it felt like the world would come after me," Mendoza says.
As a player, she would visualize how a huge game would go, but "it's hard to do that when you've never done it." On the field, she would take confidence from her preparation, but now there wasn't time.
"I could have totally sucked," she says.
Yet while this was her first "Sunday Night Baseball" assignment, it was hardly her first live sporting event. As the pitchers started throwing and the batters swinging, she realized it was no different from the dozens of softball games she worked each season.
"You could feel the change in her comfort level inning by inning even in the first game," Shulman says.
The Cubs' Jake Arrieta made history that night by no-hitting the Dodgers. Mendoza made history after her debut earned rave reviews, sticking on Sunday night the rest of the season and becoming the first female analyst to call a nationally televised MLB playoff game when she worked the AL wild-card matchup.
John Wildhack, ESPN's executive vice president for programming and production, doesn't want to speculate about what kind of position Mendoza would've held in 2016 if not for Schilling's tweet. She was undoubtedly a big part of the network's long-term baseball plans before that, he adds, preferring to focus on how she managed the circumstances that were in her control.
"She seized the moment," he says.
As Wildhack talked to others in the industry about Mendoza's performance, he realized: "Wow, this was not just good. This was really, really, really good."
Boone adds that what he heard "from very smart people I respect is she said some things on games from an analysis standpoint that made them take note."
Still, there were occasions in those first couple of broadcasts that Mendoza hesitated before making a point, fearful of the repercussions of a misstep. The moment would pass and she'd never get in that observation.
That happened less and less by the wild-card round. The additional games, along with her studio work during the playoffs, also allowed her to introduce herself to players and managers around the batting cage and in the clubhouse.
She fondly remembers chatting with Royals star Eric Hosmer during the World Series, his bat in her hand, just two great hitters talking shop. Mendoza hopes that soon she'll no longer need to start each conversation explaining who she is, why she's there, and how she understands the intricacies of their swings.
"It just felt so good for the guys to see me as a peer and not just a female," she says.
And now with the benefit of a whole offseason, Mendoza has time for her beloved preparation. She expects to put together an Excel spreadsheet on each team.
Returning from the World Series, Mendoza happened to be on the same flight as "Monday Night Football" producer Jay Rothman. He showed her video clips that coach-turned-analyst Jon Gruden compiles and narrates for his colleagues to highlight areas he's focusing on.
Hoping to learn more, she shadowed the Monday night crew for three days before the Nov. 9 game between the Bears and Chargers in San Diego. Mendoza attended all the meetings, sat down with play-by-play announcer Mike Tirico for three hours, and peppered Gruden with questions about his routine. She wanted to know everything from the volume of his notes to where his eyes go during a play.
With her new role, Mendoza, who lives in California and has two young children, made one particular request: She'll still call the Women's College World Series.
She and Boone will be the fifth different analyst team in six seasons for "Sunday Night Baseball" since Jon Miller and Joe Morgan departed after 21 years in 2010 — partly because Bobby Valentine and Terry Francona each left the booth to return to managing.
The 42-year-old Boone, who joined ESPN in 2010 after playing a dozen seasons in the majors, moves up from the Monday night games. "Sunday Night Baseball" also gets a new producer in Andy Reichwald, who also comes over from Mondays, while Buster Olney returns as the reporter.
"If this team establishes themselves as we hope and we think they can," Wildhack said, "it will be terrific for us, terrific for 'Sunday Night Baseball' and terrific for the sport."

Sent from my iPhone

THE MITCHELL REPORT IS ON THE CLOCK

You know this is big when CNBC's business channel has a countdown clock for the announcement. This is normally reserved for Federal Reserve announcements or other important business news.

After years of investigation, and up to $20 million in expenses, we finally get the names and the finger pointing we've all been waiting for.

Baseball's problem at this point is to somehow find a way to ensure that the financial goose keeps laying golden eggs while trying to persuade the fans, the media and Congress that the goose is not being fed performance enhancing substances to get the results.

According to an October 7th Phil Rogers piece in the Chicago Tribune titled "MLB cash cow breaking away' baseball is poised to meet or surpass the NFL in terms of total revenue generated.

"I probably shouldn't say this," one highly placed MLB executive said
last week. "There was a time when I wouldn't even think it. But I think
we're going to see a time in the future, the near future, when we are
going to pass the NFL in producing revenue."

Commissioner Selig was quoted as saying:
"By any measure you want to look at, our sport is more popular now than
it has ever been," Selig said. "The country really is baseball-crazy
today, no question."

The 30 major-league franchises combined to draw 79.5 million fans,
averaging 32,785 per game. The overall attendance increased 4.5 percent
over the record 2006 totals. Local, cable and network ratings are also on
the rise.

So in spite of the recent steroid mess, or maybe in some ways because of it, the sport is enjoying unprecedented popularity. In no other business could you have the same level of abuse of the product by those in charge of enhancing the value of it, and still produce the kind of results baseball has been getting recently.

The fans clearly love the style of game as it is being played today.

Let's face it, as much as purists may decry the lack of such old-school fundamentals as the lost art of laying down the sacrifice bunt, or the majestic artistry of the well-timed hit and run play, at the prices it costs to attend a major league game, fans will continue to demand the long ball and increased scoring.

Every other sport, with the possible exception of soccer, has recognized this and adjusted the rules of the game and/or style of play to accommodate the demand of the fans. And the exception proves my point. Soccer will never catch on in this country, number 1 because it's a communist sport and communism is dead, and number 2 there is no scoring. It's like watching paint dry. And while yes, I can still attend a professional soccer game in this country at bargain prices (as long as it is not a game where Beckham rides the pine) you couldn't pay me to watch it.

So, yes, I will certainly be interested in the names linked officially and forever to infamy by the esteemed former Senator. And yes, I will listen to the predictable 180 degree turn the media spin takes now that some of their butt-boys get dragged down into the mud as well. Don't kill the messenger now.

It was all fun and games when it was Barry, BALCO and Greg Anderson.

Now that the Yankees former trainer looks every bit as sleazy as Greg Anderson, lets see the scathing articles you Nobel prize wannabes write about Clemens, et. al. Lets hear the pundits rage on the air about how a multiple Cy Young award winner should be denied entrance into the hallowed, but increasingly irrelevant Hall of Fame.

If the KC Royals trainer with background and behavior that sounds Greg Anderson-esque gets fingered, maybe some of Cardinals and Royals players of recent note should be held accountable for their Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio-like early career numbers.

You see, here's the problem I have with this:

The media (the supposed guardians of the game), the owners, the GM's are all falling over themselves NOW and saying:

We're sorry, we didn't know what was going on.
We didn't know then what we know now.
We didn't see know the signs then, we do now.
Give us another chance.
We'll clean up the game this time.
WE PROMISE.

To that I say, BULLSHIT. People want to give Jose Canseco credit for what he said in his book, and the big names he called out, but they only want to credit him selectively, like his story is some sort of Chinese Buffet where you can take some of this, and a little of that, but pass on whatever part of his story you don't like.

Sorry, my BULLSHIT meter just went off. One of the things Mr. Canseco made fairly clear was that everybody knew what was going on. Players , management, fans, everyone. So why would anyone trust the same people, the same entities who couldn't prevent this from occurring the first time, to get it right this time?

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice, shame on me. A similar ignorance that was prevalent back in the 90's is with us today. Today, the main difference is we have people who think they can become knowledgeable about an issue lickety-split through Google searching. The Wikipedia-experts. Hot damn, ain't we lucky now?

Former Commissioner Faye Vincent makes the occasional rounds of the talk-shows and the evening news because he can be sure to bash Selig, bash Bonds, bash everyone involved. But NOBODY, and I mean nobody asked Mr. Vincent the most pertinent question, which is this:

Mr. Vincent, we are all now aware that you sent a now famous memo to all teams in 1991 (19 freaking 91) regarding steroid use. Obviously to send a memo regarding this subject you had to have valid, concrete reasons to send a memo regarding this particular subject as opposed to say any other topic of the day (gambling, recreational drug use, child abuse, etc.) and that is that you had to know this was a growing problem within the sport. So having identified it as an important issue, such that you were compelled to issue the memo, where was the follow-up as you observed the problem continue to get out of control?

Yes, I know, I know, the owners threw him out and put in the puppet named Bud. But in my opinion, being an ex-Commissioner offers an even better forum to be an advocate for change on this issue. An issue that his office clearly identified as a problem as far back as 1991.

And so I would ask Mr. Vincent again, since you clearly identified the issue at the time as a source of concern, what concrete, tangible steps did you take to keep the problem from escalating? Being that you love the game and all and had this intimate knowledge of the situation as it developed. I'm not real sure I want to hear much more of your carping and finger-pointing, and posturing and passing the buck. I've really heard enough of that. WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY DO, MR. VINCENT?

So the finger-pointing we know can go at least as high as the Commissioner's office. How about the Oval Office? Sure, we know that President Bush picked up the issue in his State of the Union address, but I'm not sure we're getting full disclosure from the President regarding this issue. Instead of continuing to commit perjury in the court of public opinion by saying "I didn't know what was going on in my clubhouse". You're either being intentionally deceptive or were criminally stupid at the time.

You could see WMD half a world away, but couldn't see steroid use in your own (club)house. AMAZING. Good Luck in retirement Mr. Prez. don't forget to keep in touch.

If the President is really that concerned about the issue, maybe he would like to donate the proceeds of the huge gain he made on the sale of his piece of the Texas Rangers to fight steroid abuse at the youth level or further research for better testing. Do something tangible rather than just more rhetoric. It's not as if he didn't capitalize on his time in baseball to move into something that has clearly set him up for life, right?

You'll remember, that deal was held up as an example of the President's business acumen and overall intelligence during his initial campaign (an example he clearly needed then, and probably needs more now).


So give something back to the community, Mr. President. Put your money where your mouth is. You know, a little something for the effort?

In my opinion, if Mitchell's report doesn't at least give a nodding acknowledgment
that the 'don't-ask, don't-tell' philosophy, that permeated both the locker room as well as the boardroom, allowed this problem to get out of hand. Sure, everybody wants to see their favorite whipping boys(s) get whipped, but you almost have to play "whack a mole" and make sure you pound every corner of the industry over the head equally for this. Even though, that is exactly what Jason Giambi said once and got both roundly criticized and eventually muzzled (via economic extortion of threat of terminating his contract) for saying it.

And please, I propose a law, that says the next person who uses Jason Giambi as an example of someone who told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth be incarcerated for criminal stupidity. He told as little as he had to tell regarding his history with PED as he had to in order to keep his lucrative contract. Just Google an image of his Team USA baseball card and if you even recognize him, come back and we can talk, OK?

Anyway, it's almost time to read the report. Merry Christmas Baseball.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE: After watching the Mitchell Press Conference

WOW. A very comprehensive 400+ page report. I was amazed at how often Mitchell in assessing where we have been, where we are and where we are going with regards to this issue spoke words eerily reminiscent of Mark McGwire's "I'm not here to talk about the past" theme.

He recommended, and rightly so, that the Commissioner not punish anyone retroactively for behavior committed prior to or for deeds that were in violation of a policy that was not in place at the time. The punishment will be the public stain on the players reputation, which should be damaging enough in most cases.

Not very surprising is that the names run from superstars to mere hangers-on. But that doesn't surprise me much at all. I have speculated for years that the number of players from the bottom of the roster would outweigh the number from the superstar strata. The superstars names sell newspapers however.

The detail behind the inclusion of Mr. Clemens and Mr. Pettite are sure to cause some to change their viewpoints regarding these two players. Not surprising to me that they were included, but the details from the trainer were very, very damaging.
I'm really not sure after first read, how they, or their cronies in the media, spin their way out of this one.

Let's see what say you now, oh sanctimonious protectors of the sanctity of the Hall of Fame, nay, of the very Game of Baseball itself. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Also interesting was his focus on pointing out that baseballs inactivity on this issue "while they were tending to economic issues" caused the problem to mushroom. No duh!

Also, interesting that he points out, rightly so, that at it's core the victims are the players who had to face the dilemma of either losing their jobs to players who used or joining them in order to compete. And this was where he was chiding baseball for being slow to act on the issue, because even though nobody will give him this type of out, if we are to believe that everything written in the book "Game of Shadows" is correct, this was the same dilemma, the same choices that Mr. Bonds must have felt. He was jealous of the attention Sosa and McGwire were receiving. He was losing his status in the game to players he felt were not his equals on a level playing field. You had an industry that was turning a blind eye to the problem and a Justice system that, given the penalties levied against users, didn't really care about the issue either. What to do, what to do?

But now, retroactively, because he first took McGwire seasonal HR record, and later Aaron's career HR record, we want to hang him from the highest tree. AMAZING.

We'll see how many folks take Mitchell's recommendations to heart, and I thought he made a great case for focusing on the recommendations the report outlines, and moving the issue forward, and improving the game. Or if they continue pushing old agendas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE #2

Typical reaction from the "Oh no, not Roger Clemens, crowd". Let's see if I have this correct. The trainer is lying to avoid the crushing weight of the feds charging him with one thing or another. Even though he was accompanied by personal lawyers when he testified before Mitchell. And we can believe that line but......we also have to believe that Greg Anderson doesn't act in quite the same way. He doesn't act to save his own ass and give up Bonds, but if and when he does, we would willingly believe his story even though it was in fact also coerced.

Listen, we now have MORE direct, not indirect, evidence tied to Clemens then we do against Bonds. But the media picks up the gauntlet and foolishly calls it hearsay evidence. The link to Brian Roberts sounds like flimsy, hearsay evidence. The testimony against Clemens sounds damning. And he has apparently committed perjury in the court of public opinion, what's that worth?

So now we will hear that Clemens and Pettite are the victims of a disgruntled employee and are entitled to due process and to face and confront their accusers.

These comments are all valid and and true, but most of the media folks who use this logic appear to forget (but I don't) that this was not a courtesy they readily extended to Mr. Bonds. And yes I'm talking about Hall of Fame talking head Gammons and empty head John Kruk. They don't want to believe it now that one of their pet players is dragged down into the mud.

Remember, the consensus wisdom from the bizarro-world, jackals in the media was that if the charges levied against Barry Bonds were not true, then he would sue. To protect his reputation and prove his innocence. Of course, this ignores the fact that our entire justice system is founded on the presumption of innocence and the principle that the government has to PROVE YOUR GUILT, not the other way around. Interesting that yesterday, even ESPN's resident legal expert Roger Cossack seemed to be able to finally articulate these legal concepts on behalf of Mr. Clemens. HALLELUJAH, THEY'VE SEEN THE LIGHT.

I do seem to recall that Clemens has in the past threatened to sue anyone who damaged his reputation or cost him endorsements or damaged his opportunity to continue to generate revenues based on his career. That day has come Rocket, time to put your money and your legal team where your mouth is.

Regardless of the fallout, I say welcome to the party that recognizes that EVERYONE is entitled to due process and has constitutional rights that some of the more irresponsible members of the media would so willingly trample in order to sell papers, push agendas and further careers. Fellas, you're a bit late, but welcome, there is room for all. And you'll find, if you care to read the Constitution, that it doesn't stop after the First Amendment you hold so dear. Maybe now you'll stop using the rest of the Constitution as mere shards of paper not worthy of wiping your buttocks on.

To conclude, it seems like the report was delivered like a flaming bag of shit on the porch of the players union and some individual players. And now they are laughing and letting the media and Congress do their PR work for them to tarnish (devalue) the players and gain the high ground to push further drug testing issues forward.

As far as Senator Mitchell and the $20 million dollars spent on this report, I would say this: It's not my money or taxpayer money being spent, so you can spend or waste it as you like, but it seems like most of the names mentioned in your report have long been listed on the site Baseball's Steroid Era, that we've had on our favorites for some time.

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

I haven't done a one-for-one checkoff of the two lists, but to be honest, off the top of my head, the websites list is more comprehensive and would probably have cost a lot less than the $20 million. But it doesn't have a former federal judge and U.S. Senator's stamp of approval. So I guess you get what you pay for.

Baseball now faces the prospect of having the greatest power hitter of all-time, the greatest power pitcher of all-time and the greatest singles hitter of all-time
publicly vilified and persona non-grata in the Hall of Fame. BEAUTIFUL WORK.

Finally, I feel vindicated on my long time assertion that once a popular player either tested positive, or even better was thrown under the bus by the court of public opinion in this manner, that there would be a stunning reversal in the tone of the debate.

So thanks Senator Mitchell for that, but it was fairly obvious all along that this would happen.

It's just so cool to hear ALL THE IDIOTS I'VE MENTIONED OVER THE YEARS (too numerous to mention, but y'all know who you are) TALK OUT OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS.

As I've said before as well, the contortions some of these fools are engaging in today in reconstructing their arguments regarding this issue makes it abundantly clear that these guys are eminently qualified and have the the requisite flexibility to go fornicate themselves.

Merry Christmas to baseball and baseball fans everywhere.

The WWLIS Stands for World Wide Leader in Stupidity

One of the enduring memories of the remarkably unforgettable ESPN production "Dream Job", where geeks like me could compete for a job as an ESPN talking head, was the boss man's mantra that "ESPN doesn't make mistakes like....blah,blah,blah,blah,blah".

Simple mistakes like pronunciation of names, dates when events happened, stadium names, etc. Well, guys how about some remedial math courses thrown into the next corporate get-together?

The reason I bring this up? On a recent Baseball Tonight with Steve Bertiaume and I believe Kruk and Steve Phillips (who should know better) were batting around the
recent Buerhle-White Sox contract drama, and compared his age, salary and prior record with that of the Giants Barry Zito.

They did a good job of illustrating that they were dead even in almost all the relevant baseball stats, not including salary. Good job so far. These guys looked like equal values.

HOWEVER, they then veered into the dollars and centsd and Bertaume acted astonished that the Sox would not sign a comparable talent to Zito for ".50 cents on the dollar vis-a-vis Barry Zito. Apparently, accounting is not for everybody.

I guess using the simplistic "total value quoted" method of analysis this might be correct: Zito signs for $126 million vs. Buerhle's $56 million.

However, given the assembled on-air talent and the army of off-air staff these guys have in research (where's The Schwab when you need him?) shouldn't somebody have told these guys that Buerhle was not giving these guys any real "hometown discount"

That's another term I heard the local (Chicago) ESPN talent tossing around a little too liberally. Guys, there isn't any discount here.

I'll do the homework nobody at ESPN seems to be able to do.

Contract figures are from:
http://mlb4u.com/profile.php?id=209

We'll look at Zito's deal in depth. Although it's reported as a 7-year, $126 Million deal.


Contract:
signed 7-year deal worth $126M thru 2013 season on 12/29/06- + he receives salaries of $10M in 2007, $14.5M in 2008, $18.5M each year in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and $19M in 2012 and $20M in 2013- + the deal includes a team option for 2014 worth $18M or a $7M buyout- + the option becomes a player option if he pitches 200 innings in 2013 (with at least 180IP in either 2011 or 2012), 400 innings combined over 2012 and 2013 or 600 combined from 2011 to 2013- + if the option becomes guaranteed as a player option, but he chooses to decline it then he receives a $3.5M buyout- + he receives a complete NO-TRADE clause- + he receives a suite on road trips- + he can earn award bonuses: $500K for Cy Young Award, $200K for 2nd place Cy Young finish, $150K for 3rd palce Cy Young finish, $100K for 4th place Cy finish, $50K for 5th place Cy finish; $750K for second Cy Young award and $1M for 3rd Cy Young award; $250K for MVP, $150K for 2nd place MVP finish, $100K for 3rd place MVP, $75K for 4th place MVP and $50K for 5th place MVP; $200K for WS MVP, $100K for LCS MVP; $100K for Gold Glove and $100K for All-Star selection- + as part of the deal, he will fund the construction of youth fields in the San Francisco area through his foundation and a portion of his deal will be donated to his charity, Strikeouts for Troops- + 2006 salary: $7.9M, 2005: $5.6M, 2004: $2.7M, 2003: $900K, 2002: $500K (+ $400K signing bonus)

OK, lets see how that works out for Zito for the early years:

2007 - $10M
2008 - $14.5M
2009 - $18.5M
2010 - $18.5M
so for the first four years Zito makes $57.5M in salary.

2011 - $18.5M
2012 - $19M
2013 - $20M
and in years 5-6-7 $57.5M in salary.


So in reality, a 7-year, $115 deal, so far.

ZITO ALSO HAS $11M POTENTIAL BONUSES, BUT HE WOULD HAVE TO WIN THE CY YOUNG AWARD, TH E LEAGUE MVP, THE WORLD SERIES MVP & THE GOLD GLOVE AWARD EVERY YEAR FOR SEVEN YEARS TO COLLECT ALL $11M IN POTENTIAL BONUS DOLLARS AVAILABLE.

What are the odds of that happening? Realistically, out of that $11M pool of "potential" bonus money, he'll be lucky to collect 10-20% of it over the life of the contract.

Don't even get me started on the rant about why a guy who is already getting paid $15-20M in salary has these type of bonuses in his contract.

A-Rod has a bonus for making the All-Star team for chrissakes!!!

FOR HIS SALARY, HE SHOULD MAKE THE ALL-STAR TEAM EVERY FREAKING YEAR, OR HE FORFEITS A PERCENTAGE OF HIS SALARY!!!

Oh well, too late.

Anyway, back to Zito-Buerhle:

So Buerhle gets 4 years, $56M vs. Zito's FIRST 4 years, $57.5M, a hometown discount of $1.5M over the same four years. The only difference is Zito knows what his salary is for years 5,6 and 7 and Buerhle does not. Buerhle might get a bigger deal in the out years. It depends on his performance and where the market goes. Both sides are taking a crapshoot.

White Sox fans to this day are clogging the airwaves with fanciful hopes of a pot of $70 million in saved salary that can now be spent on top-tier free-agents (A-Rod??).
STOP IT PEOPLE!!!

Ask yourselves, who are you going to get in years 5-6-7 to be your top of the rotation starter and how much do you think it will cost in those years?

So get all your facts together before opining on these issues or issuing kudos to Kenny Wiliams, White Sox GM, or Buerhle for the "hometown discount" or loyalty or whatever. It's just not there, folks.

I'll forgive the boys at ESPN this time, after all, I owe them for removing Salibury from my local radio airwaves. And now, I hear Danny-boy is leaving also, which means the Olber-douchebag can't be far behind. My ears may stop bleeding after all.
HAT TRICK!!

Now if Doug Gottlieb can only contract terminal laryngitis. Ahhh, perchance to dream.

Devil Rays in Disney & Kruckie No Likey :(

Kruk trashed the idea of D-Rays playing in Orlando in a minor league
park. This shows why Sternberg is who he is (a successful businessman)
and Kruk is who he is (an idiot, hack, talking head). Compare business acumen based on bank accounts and Sterberg wins. I mean, I can criticize Warren Buffet's investment decisions but based on our prior track records (and bank accounts), who's going to look like the fool?

Kruckie analyzed this as a former player, thinking the buffet spread in the locker room was going to be minor-league, the post-game beer was going to be minor-league, and probably that the tail in the stands was going to be decidely minor-league. Sternberg is trying to build a franchise. I give him an A for effort. And from a fans perspective, if you can see major league baseball combined with the charm and proximity of a minor-league park, you've got something. Now, if only the concession prices were the same. Well, there goes that dream.

EXCERPTS FROM THE ARTICLE:

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/05/16/Rays/Sternberg_s_blind_amb.shtml

He is a dreamer, your Devil Rays owner. Where you see apathy, he sees
potential. Where you see empty seats, he sees untapped resources.

The Rays have a hard time getting fans to cross a bridge, and this guy
is envisioning them getting excited halfway across a state.

"I don't mind ambitious, " Sternberg said, standing on a field at
Disney's Wide World Sports complex. "There's no such thing as too
ambitious."

So how could you possibly watch people walking out of a ballpark at the
start of the 10th inning and not deem it a mistake of wild proportions?

By buying into Sternberg's vision.

"We can survive barely and we can do okay if we get the support of St.
Pete and Tampa, " Sternberg said. "We can thrive - which is what
everybody in St. Pete and Tampa wants - if I do my job expanding to become a
regional franchise. From Port Charlotte up, and Orlando in.

"We have to be a regional franchise."

But, really, that was not the purpose of this series. Sternberg's plan
is grander. He sees advertising dollars. He sees demographics. He sees
marketing.

And he sees lots and lots of television sets.

Before the Rays moved into Orlando's ballpark, they invaded Central
Florida's airwaves. The Rays increased their TV package from around 25 to
67 games.

This means a market that was the 27th largest in the United States,
according to the latest census, has Rays games on TV several nights a week
all summer long.

"Would I rather have 30, 000 people in the stadium or 1-million
watching on TV?" Sternberg said. "I think I would probably rather have
1-million people watching on TV. It's more important to know that 1-million
people do care. And, from a money standpoint and the advertising, there's
more revenue derived there.

"The Red Sox draw people on TV in Maine, all over Massachusetts, down
in Connecticut, Hartford and New Haven. People three hours away, for
goodness sakes. I know they're the Red Sox, and I know we're not. It's
going to take us a long time. But you have to start. And here's where I'm
starting. I'm putting my flag in the ground right here, and I get
everything in between."

The Rays are nowhere near 1-million viewers on their television
network, but ratings are up. In Orlando, the Rays say they've actually
doubled. That may be easier when you're basically starting from zero, but it's
still a nice boost.

And team president Matt Silverman said it is a direct correlation from
the exposure of this three-game series in the market.

© Copyright 2002-2007, St. Petersburg Times

Records are made to be broken, Even this one

With all this angst about Bonds breaking Aaron's "hallowed" record, I started thinking about what records in sports nowadays are truly beyond approach.

For some reason, Sean Kemp's record of 7 children with 6 different mothers (as of 1999, the number could actually be significantly higher by now) came immediately to mind.

It's not a sports record, but given it apparently is held by a sports figure, I'm willing to grant an exception in this case.



So in honor of the man who gave more hernias to mailmen on Father's Day, the incomparable Shawn Kemp, we have the Official Las Vegas Odds on various celebs to break this amazing record.



Prohibitive Favorite:

2:500 Former President Bill Clinton (off the board if his wife wins Presidency)
the only thing that could possibly stop him is if Hillary is able to garner support for her little-known bill to sterilize all former Presidents.

3:1 Kobe Bryant - has proven in the past that he can take it strong to the hole, both on and off the court. His contract may prove to be an impediment as it is not large enough, as currently structured, to buy enough "I'm sorry" diamonds to get over the hump. Apparently has sufficient ignorance of the word "No" to give him a real chance. Maturity could stand in the way, but most close friends and observers doubt this will be an impediment. Current events seem to bear out this feeling.

5:1 Brian Uhrlacher - nicknamed "Girl-Sacker" provides a delightfully provocative nickname to initiate conversation with most fertile, young potential panty peelers. Scouts rave about his ability to plug the hole. Good hands (shown below) leave him in the game against the run and the pass. First to lay pipe in the now scandal ravaged Paris Hilton gives him a certain amount of skank cred..



7:1 Sydney Crosby - anyone who scores more on and off the ice than Gretzky and who inspires women to hold up signs at games saying "Hey Sydney, put it in my five-hole" (thereby risking a frisking by $7.50 / hr.stadium security) has enormous future potential.

9:1 Matt Leinhart - building on pipe laid by Urhlacher (and many others) at the Paris Hilton. Only lefthander in current crop.

10:1 Tom Brady - Nothing says pantie peeling like 3 Super Bowl rings and a huge contract. Playing in tight pants help. Developing ability to go through supermodels like Bill Parcells goes through chicken wings.

15:1 Derek Jeter - his eyes say no-no, but his daring play and Yankee captaincy scream F_ _ _ Me!! F _ _ _ Me! to baseball fans of all ages throughout the major leagues.

20:1 Alex Rodriguez - growing tired of Jeter's sloppy seconds in NY. Seems poised for a breakout year. If you think he was mad about being dropped to eighth in Joe Torre's lineup in the playoffs, he's really going to be pissed about being eighth in this order.

25:1 Tony Parker - never discount the French in a competition like this.

30:1 Michael Jordan - may tire from writing too many zeroes on checks's to ex-es. May eventually be a precursor to impotency down the line. Not proven scientifically, only anecdotally from numerous ex-husbands.

100:1 Harold Reynolds - spends too much time at the petting zoo. Needs more sack time. Currently getting "Chick" lessons from Salisbury.

1000:1 John Kruk - (Slim Fast version) - If his wife thinks he's less disgusting now, wait until she sees him kiting child support checks for the tobacco-spitting Little Kruksters.

Million:1 John Kruk - (If weight yo-yo's back up to pre-diet levels)

Infinity:1 John Kruk - (With Weight Back Up and Mullet Hairdo Back)

Infinity * Infinity:1 - Sean Salisbury - both pre and post diet levels and with or without portfolio of "Little Sean" phone photos. This sleaze would stand out in a convention of strip-club owners. Wouldn't bet on him scoring if perpetuation of the species were at risk. Even then, insemination by apes and setting the evolutionary clock back about a bazillion years would be more palatable to all women.

Get your bets down!!! Note - all present and future NASCAR drivers were ruled off the board for obvious reasons.

ESPN Harold Reynolds Update

Harold, Harold, Harold dumb to turn the ESPN PA pool into your own personal petting zoo. Dumb to say your phone is ringing off the hook with offers. It's probably not and even if it is, it hurts your possible wrongful termination or defamation suit. That was just your ego talking wasn't it? Your reputation for having good hands during your playing days simply does not transfer over well to corporate functions or around the water cooler.

I'd say someone needs a hug, but that may just be throwing gasoline on the fire.

Notes to PDA To Do List:

1) clean out desk at ESPN
2) punch Jeff Brantley in the face before exiting building
3) kick John Kruk in the nut for all the times he acted smug and intelligent
4) tell Steve Phillips a blow dryer and a GQ hairdo can't replace good baseball IQ
5) see if Isiah Thomas needs an assistant coach.

The "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS" Awards

With apologies to and admiration for John McEnroe, whose rendition of "you cannot be serious" is the inspriation for the Award. The following items are so egregious as to merit anger and outrage at that level.

ESPN: for firing Harold Reynolds. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. Does Jeff Brantley have a no-fire clause in his contract? Or picture of top-executives of ESPN in compromising positions in his possession? He'd have gone first in my book.

What about the other Yoda wannabe John Kruk? Are we appealing to the much coveted 35-55, spit tobacco swilling, writes with a crayon demographic here? Then he's expendable.

How about Steve Phillips? This guy is giving advice to the Yankees to trade A-Rod? Does he not recall that it was his trade of Scott Kazmir for a box of rocks that resulted in his dismissal from the Mets? This is like Dr. Kervorkian giving advice to the American Medical Association.

How about the ethical wizard Doug Gottlieb. Keep you hand on your wallet when he's on the air that's all anyone can say about this guy.

And how about the fool that is Eric Karros? During a recent Yankees braodcast this fool was tossed a softball question by his play by play man re: whether Yankee captain Derek Jeter should have in some way come to the defense of A-Rod given his recent treatment by Yankes fans. Karros lent nothing, simply regurgitating Jeter's quotes that he doesn't have the cache to chastise Yankee fans. THE HELL HE DOESN'T!!! Let's just count the ways shall we?

1) He's the freaking captain of the team, BE A LEADER!!!
2) this is his supposed good friend as well as teammate (at least that's what we were told when A-Rod came on board)
3) He stood up when Yankee fans gave Jason Giambi what-for after the steroids fiasco. So you can stand up for a cheater and a liar, but not your friend?
4) Pee Wee Reese did as much or more symbollically for Jackie Robinson when Brooklyn Dodger fans treated him like fans on the road where when he first started playing and you best believe it sent a message to Dodger fans and improved things, and I guess, thank God he had the courage to do so.

Derek Jeter: You get a large "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS" , in my mind, based on words and behavior in l'affaire A-Rod, you go from being the face of baseball to the ass-face of baseball.
Give back the "C" if you don't know how to handle it.

Floyd Landis: Tour de France winner, alleged doper based on the A sample anyway. He claims his testosterone levels are naturally high. Does this give us much hope for the results of the B sample? Or was this sample taken after any event that would have substantially lowered the level enough to pass the test? If you have abnormally high levels naturally, wouldn't you have failed most prior tests? Including the six taken at prior points in the Tour> But you've never failed one in the past right? YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS. OK, Next?

To all the fools at WADA, USADA and any other aphabet soup pseudo-nazi organization that wants to mainstream this type of drug testing protocol not only in all major sports but down to the high school sports level in this country. Let's see if I understand how this works.....You've splashed crimson red paint all over Landis reputation based on his A sample, but wait says one of the experts in the field of cycling, the B sample could test negative and exonerate him.

Presumably it's the same piss, but then what does that say about the test? We still have one positive vs. one negative, of course we exonerate, but then we're back to the damage to his rep appears on page one and the reatraction appears on page ten. And the original stain of the initial charge lingers forever, I repeat FOREVER.

And we want these jack-booted, idiots making policy in this country? I heard one of these talking heads speculating that the positive could have been caused by a) the couple of beers Landis had to rinse away his prior days disappointing performance and b) the coritsone shots he took for his hip. You're going to eliminate most competitors in every major sports league on the basis of those two conditions, I can assure you of that right know.

This same talking head opined that Landis had low testosterone levels but a high ratio of testosterone to epistosterone. First off, what is epistosterone? Regular testosterone gay cousin? And, second Landis comes out the next day saying he had naturally high levels of the big-T. Can't have it both ways, get your stories straight before you go on air please. So here we are in this state of affairs in the sports world, all because white America can't stomach Barry Bonds being the home-run king. YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS.