Tigers On The Beach: A Detroit Tigers Off-Season Weblog

Tigers Withdraw Offer to Justin Verlander - Baseball America, 10/14/04

Apparently, Verlander was asking for the moon: a major league deal that would ensure him a slot on the Tigers' 40-man roster and increase his earning potential sooner, and a hefty increase over the $3,350,000 bonus that Kyle Sleeth signed for after being drafted by the Tigers in 2003.

This appears to continue the Tigers' dreadful record in obtaining good top-tier talent with their #1 draft pick. Here's a sobering statistic: in the last 20 years, only four of the Tigers' #1 picks have ever had even a decent MLB season: Tony Clark, Justin Thompson, Jeff Weaver and Matt Anderson. The jury is still out on whether Eric Munson can join that group. But suffice it to say that they Tigers have had awful luck with their #1's. Take a gander at the #1 picks the team has made in the last 20 years:

Randy Nosek
Phil Clark
Bill Henderson
Steve Pegues
Rico Brogna
Greg Gohr
Tony Clark
Rick Greene
Matt Brunson
Cade Gaspar
Mike Drumright
Seth Greisinger
Matt Anderson
Jeff Weaver
Eric Munson
Matt Wheatland
Kenneth Baugh
Scott Moore
Kyle Sleeth

Yeesh -- doesn't look too good, does it? (Just who the hell was Cade Gaspar, anyway?)

OK, so, just to make lemonade out of lemons: just because a player is picked #1 in the draft does not necessarily mean he is going to be a stud player in the bigs. Just taking a look through the #1 picks in the last 20 years:

http://www.geocities.com/chuck_hildebrandt/Draft_History_Number_1_Picks_1985-2004.htm

You can clearly see this is the case. Yes, some of the greatest players in the game today, such as Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Nomar Garciaparra, Todd Helton, J. D. Drew (the last overall #1 or #2 not to have been signed), and Lance Berkman, among others, are on this list. But so many others -- Vlad Guerrero, Adrian Beltre, Jim Edmonds, Bobby Abreu, Miguel Tejada, Scott Rolen, Jim Thome, Ivan Rodriguez, and of course Albert Pujols, are not. Mike Piazza is famous for both being the greatest hitting catcher in history and for being a 62nd round pick taken by Tommy Lasorda as a favor for a family friend.

This is especially true of pitchers. Of the top 40 pitchers in VORP (top 20 AL, top 20 NL) this year, only eight were first round picks: Jake Westbrook; C.C. Sabathia; Ben Sheets; Mark Mulder; Chris Carpenter; Jaret Wright; Brad Lidge; and Jeff Weaver. The other 32 top pitchers were all passed up in the draft by every other team, some of them multiple times.

The fact is, a #1 draft pick is not as essential for MLB as it is for the NFL or NBA, which have many fewer rounds and rely on institutions completely out of their control for player development. Also, an entire class of player -- those born outside the U.S. and Canada and who do not play organized ball in either of these countries -- fall completely outside the amateur draft system. There have been talks about expanding the draft to include international players, but this idea resides in limbo for the moment.

So, what does this mean for the Tigers short-term? This appears to free up some money to make good on Mike Ilitch's threat: increase payroll spending to bring aboard major league-ready talent in order to improve the Tigers right away. Watch for them to become very active in the free agent market over the next several months.

By now everyone has heard about the death of Ken Caminiti. Stories about him have focused mostly on his life, his family, his various addictions, and the impact his death might have on the future of steroid testing in MLB.

But there is an interesting discussion going on in the Detroit Tigers newsgroup about the Caminiti story. The question is basically coming down to this: was Ken Caminiti a bad guy for allowing himself to get mixed up in drugs, or was he a victim of his addictions and thus unable to break free from them?

The thread in question started off this way:

"Apparently Caminiti would do anything to excel. I think the idea is not that you'll do anything, but that you'll do the right things. God bless his soul now - that's all that's left for him. As for the players still with us, one wonders if the MLBPA might actually consider getting serious about the issue of steroids and move more aggressively to get rid of them. I'm not much for unions, but I'd rather be in a union that acts in my best interest rather than a union that wants to shield me from any check or balance on my behavior - even behavior that might kill me."

The discussion quickly turned to moral terms:

"You know, I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for the guy. He was a perfectly healthy person, had plenty going well for him, and he really pissed away his life by continuing his drug habits. I feel badly for his family and friends, and hope this serves as a lesson for anyone in the same sad habit to get their act together, but I just don't know that I feel sorry for the guy."

This statement generated this response:

"Well, he's certainly not an innocent victim, and you might even argue, I suppose, that he deserved his fate. But I thank God that I haven't gotten everything I've deserved in life. Since I've enjoyed mercy and grace, I'm genuinely sad that people like Ken Caminiti and Bubba Helms will not be able to enjoy any more of it.

"Call me a sucker, I guess. When irresponsible people destroy their own lives, it breaks my heart every time."

Which led to this:

"Ugh, I have to get into this discussion. This statement "When irresponsible people destroy their own lives, it breaks my heart every time." really hits home for me. I have a brother who is a heroin addict and I have been raising his children for the last eight years. We legally adopted them when the state took away their parental rights, so the fact that when you said "irresponsible people destroy their own lives" you HAVE to realize it's not just their own lives that are affected. Think about all the innocent crack babies out there, they did nothing wrong but are going to have a life of lowered intelligence, irregular behavior and many more problems. I, personally, have no feelings, good or bad, about this Caminiti dude. I just wonder how many people he has screwed over with his drug usage. I'm sure his addiction ruined many people's lives around him. Those are the ones to feel bad for."

The response to this:

"Exactly. Ken Caminiti pissed away his life and tampered those of others. I was at a walk for ALS Sunday. I did Race for the Cure this year for a friend who left behind a husband and 4 year old son. There are plenty of kids that are in the same boat that John's nieces/nephews are in or are like my nephew who won't ever know one of his real parents (which in a roundabout way is good since the creep doesn't deserve to know what a wonderful kid he is ignoring). I feel bad for people like this, that are thrown disadvantages and heartbreak through the fault of someone else or no one in particular. Ken Caminiti had it made compared to some. But he chose to slowly kill himself anyway. I have a hard time feeling badly for someone like that."

So the conclusion the group seemed to be coming to was that Ken Caminiti was a sinner who willfully destroyed the lives of his children in order to gain whatever advantage for himself.

But then, out of nowhere, came another point of view -- a beautifully written point of view -- from someone named Donna, whom I had never seen post to the group before:

"I don't think it's a matter of whether you should feel "sorry" for him or not. I think his life is just one more example of how strong some drug addictions are. If you haven't ever been addicted to something, you wouldn't be able to understand. I've never taken drugs, but I smoked cigarettes for years. It took me years to quit and I knew the whole time they were bad for me. Ken knew he wanted to stop using drugs, he just didn't know how to stop. And unfortunately, the so-called experts around him like his drug counselor and [probation] person, all sound clueless to me in the quotes they gave after he died. I wished he could have had better help. It may have made a difference. Even on his last day, he was reaching out for help and didn't have anyone around him.

There has to be a complete change in the person's life and spiritual thinking in order to finally change. Ken was a good guy who in spite of all of his drug use, was very much loved by everyone. He wasn't one of those abusive addicts. The opposite actually. He was a giver according to teammates, and he had absolutely no self esteem according to a writer who was working on a book with him. In fact, his former manager told a story that happened about 7 months ago. [Ken] showed up at spring training where he was a coach, and he had a bloody nose and bruises on his face. His girlfriend (who he met in rehab) had hit him in the nose 18 times. And Ken just stood there and took it. He let her keep hitting him. It's almost like he didn't think he deserved better.

So to me it's not a matter of whether people should feel sorry for him (he wouldn't want sympathy) - it's a matter of feeling sadness for another human being who was obviously in a lot of pain. If you don't feel something for him or other people in his situation, then that says more about your ability to empathize than anything else."

Wow. This post floored me. It absolutely, perfectly reflected my own position on this entire situation, but which I had not been able to articulate as effectively up to this point.

In the best way I could, I had to respond to Donna and the group with this (altered slightly for greater clarity):

"Donna, this has got to be the most powerfully-written explanation of people who have monster addictions that I have ever read. I must say I completely agree 100% with everything you say here.

When I heard the Ken Caminiti and the Bubba Helms stories, I felt somewhat ambivalent in my feelings about them. I knew I didn't feel exactly sorry for them, but I felt bad for them that they somehow could not change their circumstances even though they wanted to. I knew they did not have the proper help either available to them, or that the help they hired was not effective in helping to deal with the problem. I hit a roadblock trying to articulate my thoughts on this. You smashed through the roadblock and reflected my position on this perfectly, and far more effectively than I myself could have at this point in time.

As we all know, Ken Caminiti did have resources to get help available to him. But as you've inferred, Donna, just because one can afford the help doesn't mean the help you hire is the right help, or that the help even knows what they're doing. The help may be incompetent for all you know, yet you have no way to assess that. People make bad choices in doctors, dentists, lawyers, contractors, financial advisors, etc., all the time, through no fault of their own. Just having the money available to you doesn't guarantee the help you hire is going to be the best.

I feel especially bad for Bubba Helms. Here's a guy who grew up in an environment where he was allowed to drop out of school in eighth grade, rendering himself undereducated, who was possibly (probably) mentally unstable, stuck in small-town Tennessee where there's little good employment, where there's nothing else to do, where there is probably no effective professional help for people battling drug addiction (and likely a culture that eschews seeking out such help as being a sign of personal weakness), and where drugs are rife to feed the addictions that people who have no resources, no hope, and no future need to quell the pain -- my God, what chance did the guy have?

There are a tremendous number of people, especially in this newsgroup, who want to paint the Caminiti and Helms situations as personal moral failings. They reason that the addicted ones made bad choices, pissed away their lives, and destroyed the lives of people around them, and for that they must be punished. These addicts lacked the will and the gumption to "just say no". These simplistic, self-righteous moralists would have you think that the Caminitis and Bubbas are the world are no better than human garbage to be darwinized out of existence for the good of mankind.

But as you've articulated so exquisitely, Donna, the truth is far more nuanced than that. You have brought an eloquent highly-reasoned point of view to this discussion, and for that I thank you."

I just posted this response to the newsgroup a few minutes ago, so I do not know what the reaction is going to be. It's doubtful that any minds will be changed about this issue, as people tend to hold on to their opinions in the face of all evidence to the contrary. But this discussion will continue to reverberate through the next week or so and then die out, only to be renewed when the next tragic story of death by addiction rekindles this debate.

Report: Mets seek to interview Gibson for manager - Freep, 10/11/04
I gues my dream of getting Gibby back in the Tiger TV booth with Josh Lewin is becoming increasingly remote.

Would Kirk Gibson make a good manager? I don't know. He sure won't take any guff from the players -- that's the word, anyway. But will normally-pampered superstars respond to his fire-and-brimstone methods? It might be viscerally pleasing to see Gibby put me-first superstars in their place, but does that automatically result in better production and more winning from the team overall? That's something that we would have to see -- and also would be fun to see.

I would miss the idea of having the spirit of Gibby (and the huge bushy 70's Fu Manchu of Gibby) around the Tigers' clubhouse, although it is the dream of every coach to snag a big-league managing job, so all I can say is: good luck, Gibby. I selfishly hope you don't get it.

With the Cubs collapse of late September came the quest among the media and the fans to point the finger of blame to explain why the team didn't make the playoffs. Many people, of course, fingered Sammy Sosa, since he is the guy making $17 million and therefore is the perfect target for such criticism. Of course, his unprofessional behavior on the last day of the season didn't help his protestations contrary to that criticism. (But then, many people in Chicago never embraced Sammy Sosa anyway.)

But another interesting theory came up a month earlier, and then came in handy at the end of the season: that the Cubs rely too much on the home run. I mean, look at the evidence: they led the league in home runs, right? That's bad. The Cubs should be manufacturing runs, sacrificing, executing hit-and-run, playing scrappy, hard-nosed "little ball" instead of relying on brute strength. It's because the Cubs wait around only to hit homers that they lost the opportunity to go to the playoffs.

Both of these excuses, I think, represent a basic insecurity in people that leads them to lash out at superachievers in order to cut them down to size (or at least to their own size). You could call it the "Revenge Of The Common Man" syndrome. People are naturally insecure with those who are much much bigger, stronger, better looking, richer, more accomplished, etc., and it leads them to contemplate their "failings" in themselves, and they don't like the way they look in comparison. So people look to revel in a superstar's failure, because failure would render the superstar no better than the gloating average person. It's this same syndrome that leads people to celebrate those seemingly universal traits that they themselves can reasonably lay claim to, such as hard-work, perseverance, diligence, grittiness, willingness to sacrifice, etc.

And it is exactly because of this syndrome that people like David Eckstein so well. Eckstein is a little guy who appears to embody all these traits, and as a bonus also looks innocent and unassuming, so people identify with him and celebrate his meager triumphs as their own. Never mind that the guy is a millionaire who would absolutely humiliate these people and everyone else in their slo-pitch softball leagues -- because the guy is small by MLB standards, he's easy to identify with. On the other hand, there's no way Joe Whiteguy from the suburbs or the sticks is going to identify with, let alone like or care about, those big, strong, lumbering (or superfast) -- and frequently black or Latino -- superstars.

I'm not saying these average people are wrong or that I think they should change their way of thinking. What I think about them is immaterial, because they're not going to change in any case. After all, we're dealing with a law of human nature here. But it helps for me to understand this, since preferring sacrifices over home runs and scrappy average players over home run-hitting superstars is by all appearances irrational behavior.

Bonderman Can Win 20 - Detroit News, 10/10/04

When I first saw this article from Lynn Henning show up on my computer screen this morning, my first one-second blush was a little nervousness. I thought perhaps we might be seeing an article in which Bonderman would be promoted as someone who could win 20 games all by himself, regardless of his teammates. Many baseball writers author such articles from that position, spoken or unspoken.

I have an issue with using win-loss records to assess pitcher effectiveness. That is, I don't believe they should be used at all, and they are exceedingly misleading because wins and losses are not the pitcher's sole responsibility. All the pitcher can do is pitch well and try to keep runners from reaching base by making them hit their pitches, whether out of the zone or off-speed, so batters hit the ball in suboptimal ways to create easier fielding chances, or not hit the ball at all and strike out. Despite what some people would have you believe, a pitcher has absolutely nothing to do with how much offense his team generates while he's pitching, nor can he controls how effective his relievers are in maintaining his leads or preventing his bequeathed runners from scoring. And that's at the core of my belief about win-loss records as a measure of pitcher effectiveness.

Here's my favorite example: given the following records, which pitcher would you have rather had on your team in 1987, A or B?

Pitcher A: 211.2 IP, 154 H, 87 BB, 270 SO, 2.76 ERA, VORP 55.8
Pitcher B: 229.2IP, 250 H, 86 BB, 123 SO, 4.39 ERA, VORP 24.0

You smart people probably know by now that Pitcher A is Nolan Ryan, who led the league in ERA that year with an 8-16 record, while Pitcher B is Shane Rawley with a 17-11 record. Look only at W-L, you'd never have taken Ryan over Rawley. But because Ryan got piss-poor run support from his Astros teammates, and Rawley got among the best support from his bullpen in the league, the W-L records are what they are.

Therefore, I was pleased then to see that Henning did qualify that Bonderman could win 20 on a good team, rather than willing himself to 20 wins all on his own. The question is whether Henning is speaking from a rational position, or whether he's drinking the Kool-Aid.

It is true that Bonderman does rank third among starting pitchers in the AL for K/9, and for a 21-year old, that is very impressive. He does have great baffling stuff, and his ability to control that will be key. He has shown some spottiness on that front so far, walking 3.6 batters per 9, and he does have a bit of a gopher ball, placing in the middle-to-bottom among starters on both fronts.

On the flip side: the kid is only 21. Very few 21 year-olds have pitched even this effectively at that age, and some of the names of those who did include Kerry Wood, Frank Tanana, Nolan Ryan, Sam McDowell, Bob Feller, Dennis Eckersley, Tom Gordon, Hal Newhouser, Vida Blue, Dan Sutton and Jose Rijo. Very few schlubs in that group.

So, all in all, I agree with Lynn Henning: given a good team, it is not impossible for Jeremy Bonderman to win 20 games as early as next year.