Friday, April 21, 2006

Surprises/Frustrations so far

Usually we think of pleasant surprises, but some of the surprises for the M's at this early point in the season are far from pleasant. The fact that they are problems we've had before makes them not only disappointments, but frustrations.

But first, the good surprises (from my subjective point of view, of course):
  • Jose Lopez can actually hit at the major league level
  • Joel Pineiro has stopped getting worse (thanks in part to an improved GB/FB ratio)
  • Raul Ibanez hasn't fallen off the table (let's hope the M's can still realize that he's about at the end of his productive career, and follow Branch Rickey's advice that it's better to lose a player a year early than a year late)
  • Kenji Jojima is all that we hoped for and more. There is no curse of the Mariner catcher
  • Betancourt isn't completely futile at the plate, though his OBP is still below .300.

Disapointments and Frustrations:

  • Where did the Ichiro that we all know go?
  • Let's hope Richie Sexson is getting back on track. He's in the second of four years on his contract.
  • Can we say Carl Everett is a disappointment, or did we expect him to be this far below replacement-level DH?
  • Adrian Beltre. Let's play "Which one of these is not like the others?"
    • 835, 721, 729, 714, 1017, 716
    Those are Beltre's OPS numbers starting in 2000. The good news is that his current OPS of 417 isn't going to stay that low. The bad news is that he could improve a lot and still be way overpaid at ~$13M. Unfortunately, the curse of the Mariner third baseman is alive and well.
Not having been able to watch or listen to many games, I'm going to leave the critique of strategies of Mike Hargrove to others, but from all accounts, he's been quite frustrating as well.

The result is that the M's are neither hopeless or dominant, teasing us with excitement and ability at times, while aggravating us with incosistency and blown opportunities. (Four walks, Eddie? Ouch.) Every year in Kansas City, however, reminds me that it could always be worse--all I have to do is look at the local team.

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

"If he were just given a real chance, he'd be able to prove himself."

It used to be said about Willie Bloomquist. Maybe it's time we pick up that mantle for Jose Lopez. Bloomquist has had his shot at the major leagues, and has proven quite conclusively that he is a great 25th man. But let's be clear; for every ten plate appearance, Willie will average an out in more than seven of them. He's had four years and over 700 P.A.s.

It's time Lopez got his shot, an extended one (see: starting role, full season), if for no other reason than we need to know how soon we'll be in need of a good second baseman. If Lopez is the guy for the next four plus years, then we can turn our attention elsewhere.

But we hear from the skipper that there are three candidates for second?

The definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior and expect a different outcome. How many hapless seasons will it take for the M's to question their approach instead of their luck?

Thursday, January 05, 2006

Soriano: a starter or a reliever?

With Soriano signed for the year, the question remains what role will he play? In his debut in 2002, when he was only 22 years old, he started 8 games, got hurt, and has pitched only in relief. He's coming off surgery, so he hasn't pitched competetively in some time, and is entering his prime, physically.

His track record seems clear at first: he struggled as a starter, but has done well as a reliever. In 42 innings as a starter (all in 2002), he compiled a 5.10 ERA, striking out 14% of batters faced and walking 9%. For comparison's sake, the 2005 Joel Pineiro struck out 13% of batters he faced and walked 6% (The league average is about 16% for Ks and 9% for BBs). One big problem for Soriano was facing lefties (.870 OPS allowed).

Conversely, in 69 2/3 career innings as a reliever, he has a 2.07 ERA. His K% is 16% and his walk rate is 6%. He still was more successful against righties, but he was still good against lefties.
Most qualitative observations I've heard note that Soriano lacks a good change. Conventional wisdom (and I've heard little dispute from even the most die-hard statheads) is that pitchers with two good pitches excel in relief roles, but struggle as starters, because hitters adjust to a smaller repertoire after fewer innings. Once Soriano makes it through the lineup twice, so the story goes, he has run out of things with which to fool batters.

This is a broad generalization of Soriano's performance so far, however. It's normal for a younger, inexperienced pitcher to struggle at first, especially if his development has been quick (as Soriano's was). Moreover, his 2002 season ended with injury, suggesting that he was not only young and inexperienced at the time of his starts, but also may have been hurt. Comparing his starts to his relief appearances may be comparing apples to, you know, that other thing.

Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that Soriano was less effective the longer he stayed in the game:
Situation     Batters   K%      B%   Balls in
faced play%

Pitches 1-15 34 15% 6% 79%
Pitches 16-30 40 18% 13% 65%
Pitches 31-45 34 12% 9% 76%
Pitches 46-60 29 21% 14% 66%
Pitches 61-75 30 10% 0% 90%
Pitches 76-90 20 25% 5% 50%
Pitches 91-105 11 9% 9% 73%
Inning 1-3 102 11% 12% 75%
Inning 4-6 74 18% 5% 72%
Inning 7-9 9 22% 0% 67%

If Soriano were easier to figure out after a couple times through the rotation, we'd expect his numbers to get consistenly worse the longer he pitched...but that's clear from these numbers. You might say that he stopped missing bats after about 60 pitches, but then he looks unhittable after 75 pitches. There's probably not a large enough sample size to draw many conclusions.

In the context of the Mariner's current rotation, Soriano could be one of the better starters, but only if he performs as well as his career reliever numbers, not his career starting numbers. As a starter, he had similar numbers as Gil Meche's last three years--both have K% and BB% of 16 and 9 respectively, and Soriano actually gave up HRs more frequently as a starter (4.7% to Meche's 3.5). As a reliever, Soriano's HR rate plummets to .4% (yes, that's right: a tenth of his % as a starter), and his K rate a walk rate improve significantly, too. But can Soriano bring his more recent effectiveness into a starting role? I don't think his numbers can tell us.

That leaves us with qualitative rather than quantitative analysis. Soriano does have electric stuff, but does he have enough pitches to make it as a starter? If Soriano makes an okay starter but a dynamite reliever, which do we want?

Saturday, December 17, 2005

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Similarly, even Steve Kelley gets it right twice a year. This is one of those times. Kelley somehow sees that Washburn isn't the pitcher he used to be, though some would argue that saying Washburn is only good, not great, is still a gross overestimation of his abilities.

Friday, December 16, 2005

Off-topic rant: White Elephant Gift Exchanges

With news out of Marinerland being a bit depressing as of late, I'll turn to other subjects. In this case, the "White Elephant" gift exchange. This is important to any of you who are organizing christmas parties for your neighbors, friends, or co-workers and are thinking about or are asked about doing one.

A white elephant gift is a gag gift. It's not supposed to be cute, or pretty or nice. It's supposed to be innane, ugly, useless or generally innappropriate in a funny way--and always nearly worthless. It's a great opportunity for re-gifting, and the possibilities are nearly endless. For example, your cousin just went through a knitting phase and has given you four hand-knitted toilet-paper-holders. You are going through a junk drawer and find a happy-meal toy from 1993. You still have a pair of MC Hammer pants. You were sent a recruiting DVD in the mail entitled "The National Guard Experience." All good stuff.

Lamer but still acceptable white elephant gifts would be things that aren't quite so funny, but are still worthless. For example, a cell-phone charger to a broken and obsolete model. A 2004 wall calendar. A partially used can of burguny shoe polish.

But let's be clear about what a white elephant gift is NOT. It's not a $10 set of body lotions. It's not an animatronic singing snowman from a Hallmark store (possible exception: you were given it last year). It's not a christmas tree ornament. It's not a fruitcake (possible exception: you were given it 5 years ago). These are kitchy junk, but their not funny or useless or worthless.

If you want to do a sincere gift exchange that means something, organize a secret Santa, where each person is assigned one other person to go find a personalized gift. If you want to make things easy and funny, do a real white elephant gift exchange. But please...don't have everybody bring gift-bags filled with kitchy junk.

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Be careful what you wish for...

Remember two years ago?

We were all ridiculing Bob Melvin and Pat Gillick and Seattle sportwriters for their allegiance to "Speed and Defense" ballplayers, their tentativity in the offseason, their emphasis on character and clubhouse leadership.

Well, we've now got Carl Everett, who represents none of that.

The biggest problem with signing Carl Everett is that he's not very good anymore, even as a hitter. But if you go read the comments and posts around other Mariner Blogs, you're going to find a lot of dismay over Everett's character. Well, we can't have it both ways. Either character matters or it doesn't. Carl Everett's history of outrageous, offensive, stupid behavior shouldn't matter any more than Dan Wilson's community service.

And I think it's also important to temper our criticism with humility, because our understanding of the importance of defense has and continues to evolve. We aren't the pantheons of baseball knowledge, and calling any Mariner official who doesn't do what we want an idiot is a little presumptuous.

That said, I still think signing Everett was a lot about desperation...the M's needed to make some move, and Everett was the closest guy available who fit the job description.

Monday, November 21, 2005

Tracking Pineiro's mechanics

Jeff at Lookout Landing has done some fascinating work on the mechanics of pitchers using screenshots from television broadcast. Most recently, he has taken a look at Joel Pineiro. You'll need to read his blog entry, and probably the earlier one examining Felix Hernandez, in order to understand what I'm talking about here.

Jeff was comparing release points in a single game and seeing how consistent they were. Oddly, in one of Pineiro's worst games, he had the most consistent release point. As Jeff points out, consistency is only a benefit if you're consistenly good. Observers of that game thought Pineiro's release point was consistenly bad.

Still, wouldn't it be great to be able to compare one game to another? That way we could look at the range of release points in two games, and see how they differed. This would confirm an observation that a pitcher's release point was consitently bad for the game.

The trouble is that Jeff's work is based on screenshots from TV broadcasts, in different stadiums with different camera configurations. For example, here are (from his site), the three shots of Pineiro delivering a curveball from the three games Jeff analyzed:
(Click on the images for bigger ones)
If we try to superimpose these images on top of one another, we can see clearly (from the colored lines I've added to Jeff's release-point box) that in each game, the cameras are positioned and/or aimed differently):


The Magenta area is where Pineiro's back foot appears (having just pushed off the rubber), and is the reference point I used for aligning the three images. Pineiro's body is positioned very similarly in all pictuers (the slight differences in outlines could even be only because of slight differences in the timing of the screen shot). But, as the horizontal line indicates, home plate appears in a much different place for each picture.

Because of these discrepancies in camera angles, the release-point box appears in different places in each picture. That makes comparing game-to-game very difficult, if not impossible. That doesn't make Jeff's analysis less interesting or useful. I'm just showing why taking Jeff's already-difficult work further is problematic.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Vote early, vote often

Please, do your part to give Dave Neihaus his due. Nominate him as a finalist for the Baseball Hall of Fame Ford Frick Award.

The Post-season, in hindsight (Abridged)

The second annual curse-breaking award goes to the Chicago White Sox, who really did do a horrible thing when they threw the 1919 World Series, unlike the Red Sox "curse," which was really invented in the 1980s, and has little basis in fact.

The Pale Hose' history is much clearer and darker ("Say it ain't so, Joe!"), and I'm glad that franchise can be known for something other than the 1919 scandal, at least for the time being. Not being from Chicago, too, I don't really understand why the Cubs are so much more beloved than the Sox, and I'm happy to see the underdog in the city take home the big prize.

Even though the final series was a sweep, it was a great post-season: the Yankees eliminated early, the penant winners not being recent champions, Texas getting it's first world series (but not before Albert Pujols stunned them--that was an amazing moment).

Sometimes, it seems like there's nothing longer than a 4-hour baseball game in the middle of July, but that long season is what makes the post-season so exciting, every moment--you know you're really watching the best, and yet the game could turn on something as improbable as homer by the AL pitcher playing in the NL park.

The number of teams never to make it to the World Series just got reduced by one...we're due for a shot one of these years, it's a brand new season next year, and hope always springs eternal. On to the hot stove league...

Friday, September 30, 2005

Worst Mariner Free-Agent Signings Ever?

From Bob Finigan in the Times:

By late August, Bloomquist was also injured and Spiezio was dumped to the relief of all, ending a free-agent signing that wiped out Greg Hibbard and Milt Wilcox as the worst in club history — unless one counts (or even remembers) [Pokey] Reese.


Really? Scott Spiezio is the worst Mariner free agent of all time? My first thought was that if that's true, the M's haven't done too badly avoiding terrible free agent signings. So I did some reasearch (the operative word being "some").

Most of the really bad contracts we remember were indeed trades: Jeff Cirillo, Al Martin, and Kevin Mitchell all come to mind. But what are the worst free-agent contracts, bad from from start to finish, in Mariner history?

Here are some candidates:
PlayerContract ValueYear(s) Comments
Milt Wilcox$150,000198610 games started, 0-8, 56 IP, 5.50 ERA
Greg Hibbard$8.3M1994-1997In '94, was 1-5 in 14 starts with a 6.69 ERA; was injured and never played again after that.
Pete O'Brien$7.6M1990-1993In four years (all as a starter), O'Brien managed a .237/.304/.366 line in a position (1B and DH) where most teams get their hitting and power
Scott Spiezio$9M2004-2006Sandfrog's leading man averaged .198/.283/.340 as a corner infielder over 414 ABs before being released this year.
Mike Felder$850,0001993Suggested by Peter White's inclusion of Felder in the worst Mariner seasons ever, Felder hit .211/.262/.269 in 342 ABs.

So how do we pick the worst? If I had calculated Win Shares, Hibbard's has undoubtedly got to be the worst dollar-per-win-share there, since he played so little. However, and argument could be made that its worse to both pay AND play a bad player, because it makes your team worse and costs you a lot of money. Pete O'Brien's scores high in this regard.

So I don't have a diffinitive answer, but I think a few things are clear:
1) The M's don't have any Mike Hamptons or Derek Bells on their rap sheet. Their conservative approach to contracts--well, that and their history miserly owners--has help them avoid castastrophically bad contracts.
2) Milt Wilcox, while certainly bad, can't come close to qualifying as a "worst free agent in M's history, even if the average MLB salary in 1986 was $411K. (in 2002, it was $2.4M).
3) Scott Spiezio does belong on this list, though $9M dollars today isn't as bad as O'Brien's $7.6M in the early 90s.

Am I forgetting anyone? Are there more factors we should consider? This is one I'd really appreciate some feedback on.

Thursday, September 08, 2005

In the bleak late-summer...

...we remember. Dave Cameron got all nostalgic over at USS Mariner, and it was fun to reminisce with others about the days of yore. Even 1986, when the M's were terrible, but when I began to really root for them.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

What happened to Joel Pineiro?

Two years ago, Joel Pineiro was going to be the linchpin of our future rotation, backed up by a plethora of young arms nearing the majors. Those young arms haven't worked out so well for mostly medical reasons. Besides, young pitchers are risky commodities, being so prone to injury. But Pineiro was a good bet. What happened?

Why have we gone from extolling his virtures to calling for his outright release? He's been a lousy pitcher this year, mostly because of he's lost the ability to strike batters out. Look at this:

YEAR ERA  IP    K/9 BB/9 BABIP  SLG
2000 5.59 19.1  4.7 6.1  .333  .481
2001 2.03 75.1  6.7 2.5  .235  .263
2002 3.24 194.1 6.3 2.5  .285  .411
2003 3.78 212.2 6.4 3.2  .276  .359
2004 4.67 141.2 7.1 2.7  .299  .442
2005 5.56 139.1 4.8 2.8  .319  .468
We can see that, in 01 and 03, he did a better job (if we're going to give him credit for it) keeping hitters from making solid contact. Batting Average on Balls In Play and Slugging Allowed were both down those years. He walked more batters in 03, but took care of that in '04. This year, however, the big change is in his inability to strike batters out. Coupled with a much higher BABIP, it has spelled disaster.

The best theory I've heard to explain this is that Pineiro's health isn't at 100%, and he doesn't quite have the velocity he once did. Batters put the ball in play when they use to miss entirely, and are making solid contact when they didn't before, because they have a little bit longer to adjust. Or, a lingering injury is compromising his control.

Either way, the cause would be an injury--which is far different from saying that he simply lost the ability to pitch. If Joel is injured, then that problem needs to be diagnosed first, before we give up on him. We need to know if this is an injury that will keep him from being good again (see "labrum, torn"), or one that, once healed, will not prevent him from returing to form. Calling for Pineiro's release now is absurdly premature.

Monday, August 15, 2005

Middle Infielders, Musical Chairs

Tonights lineup includes:

3B - Bloomquist
LF - Ibanez
DH - Beltre
...
SS - Morse2B - Betancourt

If you patrol any of the comments over at USSMariner, you'll see that a lot of folks wonder what the point of sacrificing your infield defense when Hernandez--an extreme groundball pitcher--is on the mound. Beltre and Betancourt are clearly the superior defenders for the left side of the infield. Furthermore, they muse, why isn't Jose Lopez, he of the .911 OPS at AAA, up to play second anyway? It would be as simple as releasing Speizio, who's not doing anything for anybody right now.

It's fashionable to pile on the M's these days, and it's easy to take pot-shots at the management and roster construction with the team playing so poorly. But there are legitimate explanations for tonight's lineup:

Hernandez, of all M's pitchers, relies on his defense the least. If you're going to give Beltre a break, get Morse some at-bats, let Ibanez remember what a glove feels like, this is the night to do it. As David Cameron pointed out on tonight's game thread at USSMariner, Morse has never played anything except shortstop, and Betancourt will still be very effective at second.

And there are legitmate reasons for the current roster:

Lopez played very poorly in his audition in the majors this year. He didn't get a long look, but what opportunites he got, he squandered, managing a microscopic .545 OPS in 24 games (80 plate appearances). Lopez clearly is the future at second, so the M's should be thinking about his developmental first and foremost. That likely means getting him regular plate appearances and not messing with his psyche nor ruining his confidence. Tacoma is the best place for this.

Even if regular major league at-bats were desirable for Lopez, he'd have to displace Betancourt or Bloomquist, neither of which are going to appeal to the Mariners. Bloomquist, for all the moaning at USSM, is having a fine second half (coincidentally hitting a triple in tonight's game), and is a fan favorite. He'll be on the roster next year, and he provides some measure of offense, so he does help keep a few more fans trickling in. Replacing Betancourt compromises your defense by requiring either Bloomquist or Morse to man short, and either pushes Betancourt to the bench or back to Tacoma. Exchanging one future regular infielder for the other isn't much use. Finally, replacing Speizio means somebody has to go to the bench.

Tonight's lineup is unusual, for sure, but it's hardly evidence that the M's don't know what they're doing. I look forward to see Lopez next year, but nobody needs him to displace one of the current regulars only to struggle at the plate.

Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Recent Games

Day1: Snelling ignites a comeback.
Day 2:Felix shows why he's the heir apparent.
Day 3:Willie Bloomquist boots it.

Top of the Ninth, with Guardado going for his 29th consecutive save, and Bloomquist throws the ball away, giving the Twins' Michael Cuddyer an extra base to add to his infield single. That extra base would prove critical, as Cuddyer's pinch runner would score on the next play, a left-field single.

Betancourt gets on base to lead off the ninth, and Chris Snelling, of all people, bunts, so that the fearsome Wiki Gonzalez can drive Betancourt in. I can understand playing for one run in this situation generally, but you don't have Snelling bunt when he's followed by Gonzalez. Really, why is Snelling down there in the order anyway? Especially when, after a groundout and an intentional walk to Ichiro, Willie Bloomquist is up to bat?

"Time for him to redeem himself," says Dave Valle. "The hottest hitter on the Mariners for the last six weeks," says Rizzs. "That can't be right," I say to the TV. Yes, I talk to the TV. You gotta problem?

Since the beginning of July, Bloomquist actually has done very well. But he hasn't been the best hitter on the M's during that time. He is tied for second in average (.314), with Sexson, over that period, trailing Ichiro (.324). Sexson blows everyone else out of the water in OBP (.407) and SLG (.645). So while Bloomquist has hit for a good average over the last six weeks, he certainly isn't the guy you want when you can't afford to make an out. No, for that you'd want Ibanez, Ichiro, or--you guessed it--Chris Snelling, all of whom have a better OBP.

Thursday, July 21, 2005

Why this isn't 1995

Apparently, the Mariners still aren't convinced they have no hope of reaching the post-season. So says Larry Stone. The wonderful ride of 1995 enables us to think nothing is impossible. But we're in a much different place than in 1995. John McGrath agrees, but doesn't get into details. I will.

Today, the Mariners have 10 days till the trading deadline. They are 41-52, 14 games out of 1st place and seven games out of third place. They are ten games out from the wild card, with eight teams ahead of them in the wild card standings.
In 1995, this is what the standings looked like in the AL West on July 21st:
Team        W - L  Games Behind
California 46 - 32 -
Texas 42 - 36 4
Seattle 38 - 40 8
Oakland 39 - 42 8.5

And the Wild Card Standings on 7-21-1995:

Team W - L Games Behind

Texas 42 - 36 -
Baltimore 38 - 39 3.5
Seattle 38 - 40 4
Kansas City 36 - 39 4.5
Oakland 39 - 42 4.5
New York 36 - 40 5
...
Though hanging on by a thread, the Mariners were clearly not wildy irrational in 1995 to shoot for a strong finish and a possible first post-season berth in franchise history. (They acquired Norm Charlton on June 14th, and traded for Andy Benes on July 31st.) Though their run to the division title was improbable--it required both a Mariner surge and an Angel collapse--the Wild Card was still within reach.
Moreover, in this strike-shortened season, the season up to this point did not carry the same significance. That is, the 93 games the Mariners have played this year are a greater body of evidence to their true ability than the 78 games played on this date in 1995. The Mariners have had 15 more games this year to show how bad they are.

In addition, the 1995 M's had individual reasons for optimism: an ace starter, who would go on to lead the league in ERA and W-L percentage (Johnson), a designated hitter who would go on to lead the league in batting average, OBP, and doubles (Martinez), and a perennial all-star scheduled to return from injury (Griffey). Power and timely hitting came from Jay Buhner and Tino Martinez, who, along with Edgar, were 3rd, 4th, and 5th in RBIs.

The M's don't have the players they did in 1995, particularly anyone that comes close to what Johnson did. But more importantly, they are nearly twice as many games from a post-season berth this year--in either the divisional or wild-card race. In the wild card race, they are looking up at six more teams than in 1995.

Making the post-season this year would be even more improbable than in 1995. The next chance the M's have of making the post season starts in the spring of 2006, and they need to act accordingly.

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Baserunning mistakes

Two important ones tonight:

Morse, trying to stretch a double, loafs out of the box to first, and only turns it on when he sees how deep the ball went into the gap. Then he slides into third on the outfield side of the bag, making the tag easy for Baltimore's third baseman.

Second, Ichiro fails to tag up on a deep, deep fly ball to right center with one out in the bottom of the eighth. A passed ball, an infield hit, or a sharp liner to center gives the M's a lead if Ichiro goes to third. As I type that, we'll see if Sexson can still drive him in. But he should have tagged.

Update: Well, we won anyway. Thanks to a huge Baltimore error, in part, but Morse did his job driving in Beltre.

Making the second half useful.

It's time to stop drifting. The M's season is ending after game 162, and they need to think and act strategically for next season, now.

That means finding a coherent strategy for catching next year. Borders ain't it, and if it's going to be Olivo, then the M's need to develop and execute a coherent plan, not continue the current situation, which makes no sense.

They've made the right call with playing Lopez everyday (though how DFA'ing Boone did anything but completely undermine any trading leverage they had is beyond me). It's time to do the same with Chris Snelling. The M's have 3 viable young outfielders next year to go with Ichiro (add Ibanez if you want): Reed, Snelling, and Choo. Winn is expendable, and should garner something decent in a trade. And there is absolutely NO excuse for using Spiezio as a pinch hitter over Snelling, if the young Australian isn't already in the game.

Pitching? Most are expendable in trades, though I'd be loathe to trade Pineiro now, when his trade value is low. He should slip nicely behind Felix next year. Let's give Jorge Campillo a chance to show if he can be at least as effective as Meche (without the arb-eligible salary), who is trade fodder. Nelson and Hasegawa don't have a future with the M's. Bring up George Sherrill and get him the innings in the Show.

Obviously, it's easy for armchair GMs to say "Trade Player X!" when we're not the ones on the phones trying to get value for value. But the current treatment of Snelling and Olivo suggests the M's are still drifting aimlessly, not acting purposefully.

The one objection I can imagine being raised is something along the lines of "what message does it send to the fans to give up on this season?" That's a lazy cop-out. If the concern is with P.R., the answer is to do what good politicians do: stay on message. For example:

What does is say to your fans to trading Player X?
"It says we are committed to turning this franchise into a winning one, consistently. We have some great outfielders that can step in, and are using this trade to improve our pitching."
Will you miss veteran leadership of Player Y?
"Our chief concern is giving experience to the players we believe will make us a winning team for years to come."
What do you say to fans who don't want to go through a rebuilding phase?
"Fans know this team needs to improve. We took some important steps last year, but we are not going to pretend that was enough; we're going to improve this team further, and do it now, so fans won't have to endure a long rebuilding phase. Beyond that, these new young players are exciting to watch."

All this requires strong leadership that has the vision, courage, and determination to improve the team and articulate that vision without apology.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

Protecting our homeland

I can rest easier at night knowing that our homeland is safe from the terror of cheap knock-offs. In a post-9-11 world, we can take no chances.