Building An Effective Bullpen (Financially, In Theory And In Practice) And Other Stories

• Taking a page out of the Rockies book in building a bullpen:

    I've been a fierce critic of Colorado Rockies GM Dan O'Dowd for his continued attempts to reinvent his team in so many different ways and for his open, organization-wide search for players who follow a Christian-based moral code; but one thing he deserves credit for is eschewing the trend of spending a load of money on mediocre pitchers to fill out a bullpen and instead finding available, affordable veterans and using youngsters to get the outs in the late innings.
    Building an effective bullpen has never been more important than it is in today's game where a starting pitcher is regularly yanked after 100 pitches or six innings, whichever comes first. If a team doesn't have at least four trustworthy relievers, they cannot expect to contend. Teams spend big money on relief pitchers and still don't know what they're going to get from one game to the next; and a lefty will always have a job based on nothing more than being a lefty; whether or not he's any good never seems to enter into the equation. The Rockies have had an effective bullpen over the past few years because they've picked up veterans who were without jobs and given them a chance to pitch. Guys like Matt Herges, Taylor Buchholz and Ryan Speier, who would have been called journeymen in years past, have done an excellent job while costing little money. The Cardinals build their bullpen in a similar way by finding pitchers with ability and slotting them into the correct position to maximize their effectiveness.
    Big market teams like the Yankees, Mets and Red Sox have been burned repeatedly with relievers who were supposed to do a certain job and received lucrative contracts, but failed miserably. It looks splashy to spend money on a pitcher with a proven track record, but how often does it actually translate into an effective year-in, year-out performance? Most teams don't know what to expect from many of their relievers and have to keep using them because of the money that's been spent. It may be that relievers (other than the closer) can be more interchangeable than most teams realize and that they can save some money in that area because an affordable, available veteran won't perform much worse than many of the "proven" relievers out there do.

• It's almost time to admit that Kenny Williams is smarter than pretty much everyone:

     Even with the massive stats he put up in the minors (almost identical to what he's doing now), no one could have expected Carlos Quentin to: A) stay healthy; and B) be leading the league in homers as a legitimate MVP candidate heading into June. After his series of gambles----hiring Ozzie Guillen; signing troublemakers like A.J. Pierzynski, Bobby Jenks and Carl Everett; acquiring unfulfilled potential in Jose Contreras; and quirky veterans like Orlando "El Duque" Hernandez----and winning a World Series, there were two ways to look at White Sox GM Kenny Williams, he was either really lucky or really smart.
    After the team stumbled to 72 wins last year and he made some questionable decisions (trading Jon Garland for Orlando Cabrera; keeping an unraveling Guillen; trading for Quentin and Nick Swisher; signing Octavio Dotel and Scott Linebrink), many (myself included) thought that Williams's luck was finally going to run out. Apparently, he's not lucky; he's just smart.
    The White Sox have climbed to the top of the AL Central, helped in part by the stumbling Tigers and Indians, but they've performed well in their own right and have been carried by the unlikely hero Quentin, who hit two homers last night including a game winner off of John Lackey. The White Sox defense is still porous; their hitting has been woeful and their pitching is still shaky (but then, so is everyone else's); I wouldn't automatically think that they're going to stay in first place for the entire season, but Williams has the attributes of a great GM----he's smart, gutsy and couldn't care less what anyone says about the decisions he makes; that's why he's been such a success and guys like Quentin are working out so well.

• What's so hard about writing a few hundred words?

    I'm not criticizing those who are lucky enough to get paid for writing columns and whatever, but I find it fascinating when I scan the web and newspapers for columnists who are getting paid for their work and are either unimaginative or are given time off from...from...what, exactly?
    A few weeks ago, I was reading the New York Times and got to the back of the Sunday Week In Review and looked to see that columnist Maureen Dowd was "off". Off from what? It's not like an opinion columnist is required to interview people or is busting their behind to come up with things to write about. There's a certain amount of freedom that columnists have; it shouldn't take all that much effort to come up with something to write. I see this in paid columnists on ESPN and other entities as well. Such and such was "off for the weekend". Off from what? I don't know if any of these people have worked jobs in which they performed dangerous physical labor at bizarre hours, but I have and I don't see why they need time off when they're not really exerting themselves in any substantial way to begin with.

• The arrogance of perceived self-importance:

    I literally know zilch about auto racing, but it's hard not to be inundated with stories, photos, advertisements and whatever about Danica Patrick and I'm left wondering if I'm the only one who notices how impressed with herself she seems to be. For someone who is largely a creation based on marketing principles and has been used to drum up interest in a dying entity like Indy Car racing; and has only won one race in her career, she's remarkably arrogant. I barely pay attention to the sport, but she's everywhere and in her interviews, the conceit just drips off of her.
    I don't mean this to diminish her skills or accomplishment; she has to have driving ability to even compete on that level at those speeds, but she's more like Anna Kournikova than some top-notch driver. Patrick has every right to make as much money as she can and use the exposure to further her own interests, but it's when someone starts to believe the marketing copy that they become so self-involved that even those who have no interest or knowledge of the sport notice it. Kournikova was denigrated because she was seen to be more style than substance, but that disregards the difficulty of making it into tennis's top ten.
    Think about it, of all the female tennis players in the world, she was one of the ten best (I think she reached number seven in her career), and that's pretty good, but her outside interests and jealousy she endured made her appear to be a marketing idea. The same thing is evident in Danica Patrick, but the tantrums, sour faces, complaints and overt arrogance are making her look like someone who is believing the hype; the resentment amongst other drivers must be growing exponentially because she probably started with two strikes and the last thing she needs is to be seen as someone who thinks she's better than everyone else because she's cute (not gorgeous as she seems to think); and gets into the faces of other drivers for whatever reason (she uses being a female to her advantage in that respect because if she were a guy and behaved that way, someone would belt her). The inflating balloon known as her head is going to be popped eventually; perhaps then she'll learn some humility and not to blame others when she fails. This sense of entitlement she's carting from other endeavors doesn't exist in the trenches and she's in for a big fall after that balloon is finally popped.

    Racing fans who wound up here via search engine should check out and purchase my baseball book The Prince Of New York's 2008 Baseball Guide also available on Amazon.com and BN.com. Try baseball, it's more democratic.