Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

What a perfect juxtaposition last night, with Johan Santana and Phil Hughes pitching about 10 miles apart from one another.

Santana pitched adequately in picking up a no-decision against the Pirates, in a game the Mets won, 5-4, in 11 innings. I attended this game, and Santana worked hard, throwing 114 pitches over a season-low 5 2/3 innings. He mentioned the cold weather as a deterrent. He also mentioned that the Mets' scouting report indicated that Nate McLouth, who homered in the first, was supposed to take a few pitches, and that he got a few bad calls on the at-bat that produced Jason Bay's fifth-inning homer.

Over in the Bronx, meanwhile, Phil Hughes pitched horribly in losing to the Tigers, and from reading colleague Anthony Rieber's story, it sounds like Hughes' next start could be for Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barres.

Does this mean that Yankees GM Brian Cashman goofed, when he passed up the opportunity to deal Hughes for Santana? In my humble opinion, it is way too early to make such a judgment.

It's hardly a shocker that Santana is posting a vastly superior 2008 to Hughes. Cashman's commitment to Hughes, Ian Kennedy and the rest of the organization's youngsters is about anything but 2008. It's about the hope of building the proverbial "player development machine," so that they don't have to overspend on the free-agent market to fill needs. The possibility that Hughes and Kennedy would need minor-league time was part of that commitment. If the Yankees don't make the playoffs in 2008, so be it. Cashman will sleep well, even if the decision costs him his job.

As stated here back when the Mets made the Santana trade, Omar Minaya performed an excellent job in waiting for the Twins to settle for what still looks like an uninspiring package of players. Have you seen Carlos Gomez's numbers? Yeesh. As you can see here, Kevin Mulvey is pitching decently for Triple-A Rochester, while Phil Humber is not. Deolis Guerra is pitching all right at Class A Fort Myers.

But you can bet that Minaya, who is set to ignore baseball's slotting system for the amateur draft after adhering to it the last couple of years, wants to build his organization to a point where it doesn't have to invest nine figures in a pitcher from another team in order to pick up an ace.

I think that the Santana trade will allow the Mets to close Shea Stadium with their first World Series title since 1986. Yet that high will last for only so long. In 2005, Red Sox fans, fresh off the first title in almost all of their lifetimes, resorting to booing 2004 heroes like Keith Foulke and Kevin Millar. Now the Red Sox, thanks to a strong farm system, are set to make a strong run every year, thanks to their commitment to player development, which includes patience. Last year, Dustin Pedroia hit .182 in April. The Sox stuck with him, and he proceeded to win the AL Rookie of the Year award.

If Hughes ultimately bombs, then sure, you can fault Cashman for not dealing him. But we need much more time here. If Hughes re-discovers himself in the minors, comes back and pitches like the guy who beat the Indians last October, then all will be well. And let's make sure that Santana justifies the Mets' long-term investment in him, beyond just this year and even next year and 2010.

You could argue that the true turning point in the Roger Clemens saga was not December 13, 2007, the day Major League Baseball released the Mitchell Report, but January 7, 2008, the day that Clemens' attorney Rusty Hardin decided it would be a good idea to publicly air a taped phone conversation between Clemens and Brian McNamee, which included information about McNamee's sick son.

Not only did the tape fail to vindicate Clemens, but it turned McNamee from The Rocket's conflicted whistle-blower to his mortal enemy. McNamee knew so much about Clemens that he didn't disclose to Mitchell, and that information has trickled out for months, slowly, painfully.

Now, I don't know who leaked this latest story about Clemens' extra-curricular activities, but let's face reality. Who benefits from this? McNamee and his attorneys, and the singer, herself, who is now, (not) shockingly, confirming the report. After all, I had never heard of this singer before, and I've spent two weeks of my life in Nashville.

I agree with what Wally Matthews wrote in his column today, and I'll take it a step further: Not only is this irrelevant, but if McNamee's lawyers actually called this woman to the stand in Clemens' defamation case against McNamee, it would backfire.

History has proven that people don't like going into other people's bedrooms. Look at how Bill Clinton ended up benefiting from the Republicans' dogged pursuit of the Monica Lewinsky stuff. If this Clemens case actually goes to trial, and either Clemens or McNamee requests a jury, I think a jury would feel reviled by this information. The jurors would get upset not with Clemens, but with McNamee's lawyers, for trying to tie this into Clemens' credibility.

I feel no sympathy for Clemens. He opened this door when he released that tape. But my hunch is that McNamee's attorneys are too smart to introduce this information to a jury. They'll be content with the short-term public humiliation that Clemens and his family might feel right now. This will prove to be not a news story, only a gossip item.

Flew back from Miami yesterday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to getting back into the groove of the season. The standings this morning are very funny. Love that Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Oakland and Florida are all playoff contenders. Extremely confident that none of that quartet will make the playoffs.

Let's catch up quickly:

I promised myself, when the blog craze worked its way down the food chain to me, that I would never blog while on vacation. Yet I'm in my hotel room, the rest of the family is asleep, I'm not tired and I'm trying to stay up to see what happens in this Yankees game. As I type, it's White Sox 6, Yankees 5, top 6th. Tough break for Phil Hughes. Why didn't Joe Girardi start a reliever?

Anyway, here I am, breaking my self-imposed embargo, following the tradition of the vacation-ignoring Watchdog. Figured I'd check in to see what was on your minds.

I've been following the scores and basic news on my Blackberry and complimenary copy of USA Today. I watched the last inning and a half of last night's Yankees-White Sox game, since it was on ESPN, but that's been it for me since the game when Kyle Farnsworth earned his suspension.

So, some quick thoughts:

1. The Mets will take two of three over the Phillies at Citizens Bank Park. Jose Reyes, liberated to act like his old self again, will hit three triples, steal five bases and instigate a brawl with Miguel Olivo.

2. The Yankees will win two of three against the Orioles in Baltimore, even though Joe Girardi, scarred by his Manny Ramirez experiences, will overcompensate by intentionally walking Jay Payton with a base open.

3. After Yankees fans object to LaTroy Hawkins wearing Roger Clemens' uniform number 22, Hawkins will encounter similar grief for trying 17 ("How dare you do that to Mickey Rivers!?"), 29 ("We love Mike Stanton!"), 36 ("Does Mike Myers mean nothing to you?!") and 38 ("Chase Wright is The Man!") before settling on 41. "That's OK," the fans will say, "we hated Randy Johnson."

4. David Ortiz will finally figure out why he's in such a slump, as the Red Sox will confess that they've secretly replaced his usual coffee with Folger's Crystals.

5. OK, now here's your question, substituting for a fifth prediction: Do any of you care about the length of the Yankees-Red Sox games? People in the media enjoy complaining about it, and look, full disclosure, a tidy, 2-hour, 45-minute game makes my life easier. But I don't mind the 4-hour games terribly. What do you, the customers, think?

This got lost in the blog cracks, as Major League Baseball and the Players Association released the tweaks to their drug-testing program on Friday afternoon. By the time Monday morning rolled around, we were all thinking about how the Yankees and Mets were in major trouble.

But upon having a few moments to reflect yesterday and re-read the press release, I thought it was important to discuss how the agreement corrects some of the missteps that our pal George Mitchell made in his infamous report.

First of all, the wording in the press release is vague enough that, when I wrote this story for Newsday last week, I inferred that named players would have to perform community service in return for amnesty for Bud Selig. In other words, "If you don't do this, you're going to be in trouble."

That is not accurate. While no one (including Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen, pictured, who had received 15-game suspensions and now are free) will be penalized, it's not like you'll see Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens co-starting in a public service announcement about steroids. The union promised only that "some" players named by Mitchell will participate. You can count on those who have publicly apologized, like Andy Pettitte and Brian Roberts, to be a part of that campaign. This allowed Bud Selig to save some face, in that he could say that he imposed "some" form of discipline on the players named by Mitchell.

Most interesting, to me, is provision 9 of the agreement:

In future investigations, allegations of player misconduct will not be disclosed publicly by the Commissioner's Office unless discipline is imposed. A description of the evidence and allegations against a player being investigated will be provided to him before any investigatory interview.

This is very much of an indictment of Mitchell's methodology. It was an abomination that Mitchell wouldn't tell the players what he had on them unless they ageed to meet with him _ and then went ahead and publicized what he learned, even if the allegations didn't violate the collective bargaining agreement. Now, that won't happen again.

Let's hope that history frowns upon Mitchell's conduct. Certainly, this concession by MLB doesn't reflect well on Mr. Impeccable. Not that Congress would ever challenge one of their former fraternity brothers.

By the way, did you know that Mitchell has done lobbying for a tobacco company? I wish I had learned that while the investigation was still ongoing.

I didn't write about yesterday's unveiling of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda at Citi Field for Newsday. Jim Baumbach took care of that for us, and wrote a fine story. But I did get re-introduced to Mrs. Robinson, and during last night's Mets game, I spent a few minutes in the Robinson family's luxury box. Sharon Robinson, Jackie and Rachel's daughter, also attended.

From watching Mrs. Robinson operate _ participating in the pre-game ceremony, going on the Mets' SNY broadcast, entertaining guests in the box _ you'd guess that she was closer to 65 than her actual 85. Her energy level is remarkable. In the fifth inning, as people prepared to leave and bid her a good night, she asked, out of concern, "How are you getting home?"

The nature of my job calls for me to interview famous, accomplished people and not be fazed by the assignment. But meeting with Mrs. Robinson (this photo, with Mike Cameron, is from a few years ago) carries a different sensation. How can you not be blown away what she and Jackie endured? And then, to think that Rachel Robinson has dedicated her last 35-plus years, since Jackie's passing, to a foundation in Jackie's name. They send minority students to college, a most simple, elegant mission dedicated to giving more opportunities to more youngsters.

Since September 11, 2001, I have been very cognizant of using the word "hero" in writing about sports. But Mrs. Robinson is a true hero, in my mind. For serving as her husband's partner as he tried to change the world, and for guiding the Foundation to help so many young scholars.

The people we discuss day-to-day on this blog, from Bud Selig to George "Mr. Impeccable" Mitchell to Don Fehr to the owners, general managers, managers and players, let us down so very often. So consider April 15 baseball's annual Thanksgiving. We get to thank Mrs. Robinson for all that she and Jackie have done, and all that they continue to do.

No, not because they beat your club in that heartbreaking NLCS Game 7 at Shea Stadium.

Because that team exemplifies the duality of competition. You're not playing your season in a vacuum. To the contrary, your success is measured wholly against that of your foes.

I know, I ain't gonna get an inviation from Mensa for this blog post. But at times like this, when the Mets are facing what feels like a crucial week, it's worth reminding yourself of this reality.

For while the Mets (5-6 entering tonight's game against Washington) have done nothing to erase memories of their 2007 collapse _ to the contrary, they've churned up more than one sensation of deja vu _ let's not forget that their primary NL East foes are dealing with their own agita.

The Phillies have failed to capitalize on last year's thrilling comeback with a strong start. Instead, they're 6-7, having been mired by injuries to Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino. Second-year starting pitcher Kyle Kendrick, who emerged from nowhere last year to bail out the Phils, looks like a one-year wonder so far.

In Atlanta, meanwhile, the Braves have lost Tom Glavine and closer Rafael Soriano to injuries, and Mike Hampton never even made it onto the mound. Bobby Cox's group is 5-7.

I'm extremely confident that the Marlins, currently the NL East leaders at 7-5, won't be able to sustain that pace. So how many victories will it take to win this divison? I think less than the 89 the Phillies won last year. And the Mets currently have the best winning percentage among themselves, the Phillies and the Braves.

Those '06 Cardinals tallied a seven-game losing streak and two eight-game losing streaks, and yet they managed to hold onto the NL Central with an 83-78 record. And once that happened, they started from scratch at 0-0, and they somehow eliminated the Padres, Mets (thanks to Yadier Molina) and Tigers en route to a parade.

The Mets have plenty of issues, and if they continue to put up losses like Sunday's, then perhaps there will be a shakeup in the manager's office.

Yet I still think the Mets have too much talent, in the talent-barren NL East, for such a scenario to develop. They might put up a losing record in the American League. But that's not their problem.

Certainly, the Mets themselves shouldn't think of clubs like the '06 Cardinals. They seem too relaxed, as is. But fans could try it, just in order to preserve some sanity.

The unbalanced schedule returned to baseball in 2001, and that created three visits per season to division mates' ballparks, an increase from the previous two.

In six of the eight seasons since, the Yankees have made their first trip to Fenway Park in April. They've played a total of 21 April games over those six years, and they've posted a 5-16 record.

So this weekend, a series loss culminating in last night's ugly affair, followed a recent trend. Just like in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2007, the Yankees departed Boston bruised, _ they lost the series finale each time _ and with an aura of panic hovering over them.

The Yankees wound up qualifying for the playoffs each of those seasons, of course, so we should know to avoid drawing profound conclusions from 13 games. But what are we gonna do? Sit quietly until the All-Star break?

Here are some early first impressions, after a typically compelling weekend on Boston's Back Bay:

1. In the first Rivalry series of the season, the Yankees and Red Sox will split two games at Fenway Park, with tomorrow's contest being postponed by rain. In order to avoid losing his starting pitcher to an incoming storm tonight, Joe Girardi will start Brian Bruney, then bring in Kyle Farnsworth, Billy Traber, Ross Ohlendorf, Kei Igawa, Wilson Betemit and pitching coach Dave Eiland, before finally using Chien-Ming Wang to get an out in the eighth (at which point it will rain for three hours).

2. At Shea Stadium, the Mets will take two of three from the visiting Brewers. Continuing the Mets' run of good luck, they'll learn tonight that Brewers slugger Prince Fielder will miss the series and be replaced by Eric Bruntlett.

3. The Red Sox, progressing their reconciliation series of ceremonial first pitches, will invite Grady Little, Mike Torrez and Ben Affleck up for the weekend.

4. The Tigers, off to a horrendous start, will drop two of three to the White Sox in Chicago, increasing the tension and prompting Jim Leyland to yearn for the tranquility of his 1998 Marlins.

5. After Thursday's re-distribution of titles within the Yankees' hierarchy, Hank Steinbrenner will successfully lobby to change his title to "pro-Santana co-chairperson" and Hal Steinbrenner's to "Better-be-right-about-not-getting-Santana co-chairperson."

Did you read, or hear about, this?

Holy hypocrisy, Batman!

In some ways, Reinsdorf, the venerable White Sox owner, is to be admired. He's renown for being a loyal, fair boss, and in employing African-American general manager Kenny Williams and Venezuelan manager Ozzie Guillen (pictured, above, with Reinsdorf and coach Harold Baines), he ranks as one of the game's most progressive executives.

But Good Lord, on this quote from the story above:

''We would have loved to have done more, but Don Fehr wouldn't do it. People should start to realize that we could have been testing for steroids years and years ago, but Don Fehr wouldn't do it because he said it was an invasion of privacy, and the result of that is that Don Fehr is going to cost players entry into the Hall of Fame because if we could have been testing for steroids years ago, some of these guys who are now on the bubble who got themselves in trouble would have gotten off steroids. ... Steroids is strictly a Don Fehr problem and creation.''

Give me a break. Look, Fehr and the Players Association deserve a nice, healthy share of the blame for baseball's steroids era. Fehr will tell you as much, particularly if you are a member of Congress.

But to say that the owners were not complicit in what happened? It's nothing short of laughable.

If the owners were so concerned about the lack of testing for illegal performance-enhancing drugs, then they should have gone to the media and complained. They didn't, of course, because they were profiting too much from the Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa home run chase of 1998.

So if the crusty Reinsdorf isn't willing to take his share of accountability for what happened, then he should step off, and reserve comment on this issue.

Well, let me explain.

How many of you have been to Kauffman Stadium? I know that rmt has.

It's a beautiful ballpark, and when I've been there over the years (six multi-game visits from 1998 through 2002 with the Yankees), bearing witness to awful Royals teams, I've envisioned past relevance. I could see George Brett going yard, Dan Quisenberry whipping the ball sidearmed, Willie Wilson legging out an inside-the-park home run.

Kansas City is also an underrated city, IMHO. I love the Plaza area, and Westport. I'm embarrassed to say that I still have to make it to the Negro Leagues Museum and, very close, the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum.

All of this explains why I would love, someday, for the Royals to make the playoffs again. It's not something that keeps me up at night, or anything. And it wouldn't impact my reporting, if the Royals ever became a bigger story.

I guess the best way to put it, since I've enjoyed surveying you for your favorite player, or favorite ghost, or your best game ever, is that the Royals are my favorite underdog. I think the good people of Kansas City deserve a winner, to go along with their positive memories of the '70s and '80s.

And there is hope in KC. They have a sharp general manager in Dayton Moore, and Moore made a great hire in manager Trey Hillman, who seems happy to be in his new home yesterday, prior to the Royals' victory over the Yankees.

Perhaps you have a favorite underdog. The Pirates? The Rangers? The Knicks? Please don't hesitate to share with the rest of the class.

I won't be at today's Mets home opener, but I'll be at Shea tomorrow and Thursday. This is a rare case when I put significant value in an early series. Given the way the Phillies slapped the Mets around last year, winning the final eight games of the season series, I'm wondering if Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard and company will still have that swagger.

This reminds me of when the Mets played the Cardinals early in the 1986 season, after the Cardinals topped the Mets in a 1985 dogfight. The Mets swept a four-game series in St. Louis, April 24-27, and the tone was set for the entire year.

I think I first read the point in Joel Sherman's blog, a couple of days ago: Can you imagine if the current Mets or Yankees teams, or a Yankees team of recent past, dropped the first six games of the season? In all seriousness, I'm not sure whether Joe Torre would've survived some of those years. Willie Randolph's neck would be on the line at this very moment, if the Mets were 0-5 rather than 2-3.

I got to see a good amount of the White Sox-Tigers game last night on ESPN, and wow. What a fiasco. They could just not get anything going, and you could see the shock in Justin Verlander's face (there he is pitching, in the right-hand corner) when Jim Leyland lifted him in the sixth inning.

The team that made the biggest trade of the offseason, that trails only the Yankees and Mets (barely) with a payroll of over $137 million, opened the season by losing six straight games, at home, to two AL Central foes, neither of whom is regarded as the primary challenger (that would be Cleveland).

Can any of you remember a similar plot line in baseball, or any sport - where a highly touted team got off to such an awful start? I can't, which is why I brought up Giuliani, the former New York City mayor. At one point, the experts regarded him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President, only to see Rudy bomb once the caucuses and primaries began. But that is a very imperfect comparison, given the different arenas.

Yes, we all knew the Tigers had some issues with their bullpen and starting rotation. Nevertheless, no one foresaw this. There is so, so much time to come back, and I'll stick with my preseason prediction that Detroit will win the AL Central. Yet this first week shocked the senses like none other has.

1. After tonight's rainout, the Yankees will drop two of three games to the strengthened Rays. What we'll remember most, however, will be the lingering tension between the two clubs. After Elliot Johnson barrels into Jose Molina at home plate Saturday, Shelley Duncan will slide, spkes-up, into second base; trot very slowly around the bases after a home run; and cancel Johnson's credit cards.

2. Tonight's Yankees game will be postponed at 9:00, when it's not raining. And it won't rain afterwards, either.

3. The Mets will take two of three games from the Braves in Atlanta, and they'll pummel their former teammate, Tom Glavine, Saturday. Afterwards, Glavine will say, "I'm still not devastated." In a related story, Mike Hampton will suffer from neck spasms as he nods in agreement with Glavine, adding yet another injury to his list.

4. Dodgers third-base coach Larry Bowa, suspended for three games for violating a new rule, will find out why MLB head disciplinarian Bob Watson has "an agenda" against him. On Sunday, Watson will publish a new book in which he accuses Bowa of hitting on Jose Canseco's ex-wife.

5. In the wake of this harrowing incident, every female in New England named "Alexa Rodriguez" or "Alexis Rodriguez" will change her name to "Davida Ortiz."

Thanks to the IMDb for the photo.

It's nearly unheard of to make a big trade in April, and besides, it's not like the Mets expect Pedro Martinez to miss the entire season (although four-to-six weeks sounds optimistic, to echo what David Lennon wrote here). I don't see the Mets going after Jeff Weaver (concerns about he handled his time with the Yankees) or David Wells (not a fan of his work ethic).

So the Mets will think of low-cost, high-reward options to replace Pedro, and here's one possibility: Robinson Tejeda. The Rangers desginated Tejeda for assignment on March 30, so the Mets _ who have expressed interest in Tejeda in the past, according to an industry source _ shouldn't have to give up anyone of serious consequence. Maybe a lower-level prospect. Or, if they sense that no one else wants to trade for Tejeda, they could wait for Rangers GM Jon Daniels to put Tejeda on waivers and claim him (assuming no club with a worse record, which would get to choose prior to the Mets, wants him).

Tejeda pitched for Texas the past two seasons. This is a photo from 2005 with the Phillies, which I chose because 1) I think it's a cool photo and 2) It's a Newsday photo, which means I don't have to credit anyone at the bottom of this entry.

Look at Tejeda's numbers. His 2005 and 2006 weren't bad, which prompted the Rangers to give him a spot in their starting rotation last year. That proved a disaster, as Tejeda's mechanics blew up.

These are small sample sizes, all around, but we're talking about a small investment, not much more than minimum wage. If he bombs, the Mets can just let him go. In pitching coach Rick Peterson, the Mets have a guy who has proven pretty good on reclamation projects and mechanics. Tejeda throws a fastball that can touch the mid-90s, which alone is a reason to be interested.

I know, I'm making a mountain out of a relative molehill, but I am curious to see who helps fill the Pedro void.

Just wanted to let you know about a new weekly feature we're running: A Midweek Baseball Insider. It will be exclusive to the Web site. Here is my first effort.

I will still write my Sunday Insider, which also appears in the actual newspaper. But given our 24-7 ways, there's plenty of info and fodder for a second such weekly outlet. I hope you give it a read and, as always, feedback is welcome.

And so go the ups and downs of a baseball season. On Day 1, Mets fans are ecstatic. On Day 2, not so much.

What a blow to the Mets, whose elite Front Four just turned into a Front Three, and who possess little depth in their farm system to either provide a suitable replacement internally for Pedro Martinez or put together a package for a replacement via trade. Nevertheless, I still think that the Mets can hang in there until Pedro returns, as long as they get solid pitching from Johan Santana, Oliver Perez and John Maine and their lineup continues to show some life.

Let's take a step back, however, and look at the four-year, $53-million deal that Omar Minaya gave Pedro back in December 2004. It served as a landmark contract for the organization, one which gave the Mets instant credibility after the two-year Art Howe era had put them in baseball's gutter.

I get the rationale: "We had to overpay to get him. As long as he delivers in the first three years, we can shrug off the fourth year." And so on. But now, with Pedro lasting just 3 1/3 innings into 2008 before going down, it's time to re-examine what the Mets have received for their expenditure.

2005 was heavenly. Pedro pitched 217 innings, posted a 2.82 ERA and brought much-needed electricity to the club. Minaya looked like a genius.

2006 started off fine, but deteriorated into a 4.48 ERA over just 132 2/3 innings, and concluded with devastating shoulder surgery that put him out of commission for nearly a year.

When Pedro returned to action last Labor Day, it seemed like he was offering a sneak preview of 2008. He pitched well enough, but the Mets' collapse proved swallowed him up, neutralizing the impact of his return.

And now, with Pedro down with an indeterminate period of time, you can start projecting numbers like this: