A Defector From The Evil Empire

Welcome To The Rebellion

The Nats made a fine move earlier today (although the official announcement won’t come until Friday at Space Coast Stadium in Viera, FL (the Nats’ Spring Training complex) by landing former Yankee Chien-Ming Wang.

Wang was called up in 2005 and went 8-5 in 17 starts with a 4.02 ERA. What followed were two spectacular seasons where Wang won 19 games in both 2006 and 2007 going 200+ innings both years (well, o.k. he only went 199 1/3 in 2007) and recorded sub-4.00 ERA’s both seasons as well. He finished second in the American League Cy young voting in 2006.

In 2008, Wang was named the opening day starter (essentially designating him as the team’s “ace). He was en route to possibly his best-ever season until a June 15th game at Houston against the Astros. At that point, Wang was 7-2 and the Yankees were cruising to an eventual 13-0 rout of the Astros. Wang, an American League pitcher not used to running bases, tore a tendon in his right foot sidelining him for the remainder of the season.

In 2009, Wang never got going and some fear that his foot injury caused him to over-compensate for his lack of power in his legs by overthrowing in his arm which led to a disastrous and injury riddled season.

He had season ending shoulder surgery in July of 2009.

Wang worked out for a bunch of teams just like Ben Sheets earlier this year before eventually Sheets signed with the A’s.

What the Nats are hoping for here is a return to form pre-injury. Shoulders are difficult to predict on recovery – as an example, Mark Mulder just retired at the ripe “old” age of 32 due to struggles with shoulder injuries. Still, Wang’s signing could prove valuable – he certainly has staff “ace” credentials and if he stays long-term he could be a very effective #2 pitcher behind Stephen Strasburg (provided he turns out to be all the Nationals hope for).

MLB.com writer Bill Ladson is reporting that the details of the contract are not yet disclosed, but some (Ken Davidoff of Newsday.com) are reporting that Wang’s deal is around $2,000,000 guaranteed with incentives to make much more (no link provided but it shows up on a google search).

If the numbers are right, this could be the steal of the century for the Nats if Wang can make 35 effective starts. And at the tender age of 30, Wang is entering the prime of a pitcher’s life and could help anchor this rotation for years to come.

In any case, Chien-Ming Wang goes from the Evil Empire to the Rebellion and just may be a very important piece in the quest for a Championship in the future.

2010 Preview

A Pre-Spring Training 2010 Preview

Well, it’s time to get back into the swing of things. I’ve taken a lot of time off because my life took a lot of my time and, quite frankly, I find bitching about baseball in January to be a tiring and tedious task.

We are, however, well into February – teams report to spring training soon and pitchers and catchers report later this week. Let’s take a look at the roster as it looks right now for the Nationals. This is not a scientific study, rather an obviously biased analysis by yours truly in an effort to see if we really improved over last season. Let’s look position by position, shall we?


Starting Pitching:

With the additions of Chien-Ming Wang (to be officially announced on Friday) and Jason Marquis, the Nats have added a couple of names that sound familiar to most baseball fans around the country. Marquis is a journeyman innings-eater – something the Nats desperately needed (especially as long as it was not Livan Hernandez…again). He doesn’t really turn the Nats’ rotation into a World Series contender but he should be able to help alleviate some pressure on the bullpen. Plus, we had Daniel Cabrera on the opening day roster last year and Marquis is DEFINITELY better than Cabrera.

Wang is the wild-card. If he’s fully recovered from Tommy John’s surgery he should be able to anchor this rotation and give the Nats an “ace” with a recognizable name. In a perfect world, a healthy Wang isn’t “ace” material, but he’s loads better than what we have. His biggest problem could be that as a sinkerball pitcher he will rely heavily on infield defense….but we’ll cover that later.

Rounding out the rotation are John Lannan and……well……..I don’t know. Could be Ross Detwiler and Collin Balester. Is Scott Olsen healthy enough to pitch? Beats me. Then there’s J.D. Martin (former #1 pick of the Indians, recovering from injury), Craig Stammen who showed he’s a bona fide starter as long as he only has to go through a lineup twice. Garrett Mock? Shairon Martis? Is Matt Chico really back? Can Stephen Strasburg step up in his first professional season and make it all the way to the bigs (boy would THAT help)? One thing’s for certain, Jordan Zimmermann will not pitch for the Nats in 2010 and that’s a big loss.

Bottom line for #’s 4 and 5 are that they will be filled by players with more questions than answers – not good for a major league starting rotation. All-in-all, I believe this is an improved rotation over last year – including the loss of Jordan Zimmermann.


Bull Pen:

This where the Nats are VASTLY improved over last year (and they’ll need to be if they can’t answer the questions about the starting rotation). Gone are bums like Saul Rivera and Joel Hanrahan and in their places are players like Brian Bruney (formerly of the Yankees) and Matt Capps (formerly of the Pirates) and both will compete for closing duties – the good news is that it appears as though both are capable. Plus Jason Bergmann has seemed to find his niche in long relief/spot starter duties and pitched well last year and lefty Sean Burnett proved to be extremely effective after the Nats picked him up mid-season last year. Tyler Clippard is also a converted starter and the Nats certainly seemed to help him find his role in the bull pen.

I’m betting the effective pitchers that don’t make the rotation will help round out the bull pen. My top guesses are Collin Balester and Garrett Mock. It is my belief that this is the key area of improvement for the Nats so far this off-season and should equate to a few more wins and a lot less blown saves.


Catcher:

As with the Nats last year, the question here is: can Jesus Flores stay healthy (please God, let that be a “yes”). If healthy, Flores is good enough to be the everyday catcher on a lot of rosters.

If he can’t, at least the Nats have a future Hall of Famer to back him up: Ivan Rodriguez. I won’t call him by his accepted nickname because he’s not as heavy as he once was which is what got him his nickname in the first place. Plus, I believe that his Hall of Fame career is enhanced by steroids, but I have no proof – just a hunch I have. I only hope that he can play effectively when called upon. Besides, even at his advanced age, he’s a better alternative to Wil Nieves as a starter (though Nieves makes a good backup).

So the question is, are the Nats better off with Rodriguez than they were with Josh Bard? I think so, so we’ll call it a slight improvement over last year.


First Base:

I railed on him last year, but I think the Nats’ first base prospects are trending upward this year since we have Adam Dunn on the roster and playing first for an entire year. Dunn really showed improvement defensively over the course of the second half of the season last year and turned into a – dare I say it – EFFECTIVE first baseman. I thought it would be a dumpster fire after watching Dunn play 1B in the World Baseball Classic, but he really showed he can do it. He won’t be perfect, but he’s solid over there and he’s loads better than awaiting the inevitable Nick Johnson injury. If nothing else, Dunn provides stability, for once, at the first sack – plus, his 40 homers a year helps too.

To sum up: the Nats have improved at 1B as well.


Second Base:

It looks like it’s new acquisition Adam Kennedy’s job. I would rather the Nats have signed Felipe Lopez but Kennedy was just as good as any other free agent 2B on the market this off-season. Kennedy will certainly improve the defense up the middle over the departed Ronnie Belliard. Offensively, the Nats may have taken a step back with Kennedy but they have improved defensively. Plus, all he has to do is outplay Alberto Gonzalez to keep his job. Quite honestly, if he can’t outplay Alberto Gonzalez, he doesn’t deserve to have a job.

The Nats get a push at 2B.


Shortstop:

This one’s a toughy. Was Cristian Guzman hurt all last year or are his skills in serious decline? My feeling is that it’s a combination of both and this could be the year that Ian Desmond gets his shot. Scouts have been saying that Desmond is ready at the plate but he still needs some seasoning as a shortstop. My argument? How is a rough-around-the-edges Desmond any worse than an injured and declining Guzman? Give him the job and let Guzman play out his contract as a backup. The defense is improved up the middle with Kennedy at 2B anyway, let the kid play and he’ll work it out.

Either way, if Guzman is healthier than last year or if Desmond wins the starting job, the Nats are in better shape at SS than they were last year.


Third Base:

Ryan Zimmerman went to the All Star game, won a Gold Glove and had career highs in homeruns and runs scored and had an OPS of .888 – that is all.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that I don’t see the Nationals IMPROVING at 3B, but at least I can say “they’re o.k.” in the 3B department. If Zimm gets hurt, we’re screwed.


Left Field:

The thought is that Josh Willingham will play LF, but rumors around the mill are that Willingham could be a player they would move to improve the rotation. Willingham plays a decent LF and has pedestrian numbers (.267, 24, 61) for a corner outfielder. He’s a major leaguer, just not a superstar.

Basically, LF is a push from 2009 unless they trade Willingham and plug in one of the AAA guys like Justin Maxwell or the steady (if not spectacular) Willie Harris, then LF is a big question mark.


Center Field:

Last year we had the young, upstart Lastings Milledge playing CF. I felt bad for Milledge in the sense that he never really was a CFer to begin with and he was put in a bad spot. This year, however, we have a guy with a little less power but a whole lot more speed and defensive ability – Nyjer Morgan. Morgan allows us to keep players with some deficiencies in the outfield (like Willingham) because he makes up the ground those players can’t cover. Morgan also has the plus-type speed for a leadoff hitter but he does need to get on base more frequently – I think if Morgan struggles he’s best suited as an 8-hitter.

I feel as though the Nats improved at CF over 2009 and if Morgan can move up to the leadoff spat and put up the types of performances that allow him to stay there, the Nats have made a SERIOUS upgrade at CF.


Right Field:

In 2009, the enigmatic Elijah Dukes patrolled right field for the Nationals. It appears as though Dukes will be counted on for 2010 as well (as long as the roster remains the same). Dukes has the kind of potential that makes you think he could be the next Vladimir Guerrero – but he has the type of personal discipline that makes you think he’s the next Daryl Strawberry. Dukes looks like he’s straightened out his life which could be his biggest accomplishment – because if his mind is clear and he focuses on baseball, the Nats have a potential superstar in Dukes.

RF – 2010 = 2009 with significant room for improvement without making a roster change.


Bench:

As constructed, the Nats bench looks solid. The versatile Willie Harris really could be a starter and could push for the LF job and whoever loses out the SS battle (either Desmond or Guzman) will be a great addition to the bench. The Nats also have some solid pinch-hitting bats in Mike Morse and Justin Maxwell as well as some defensive specialists in Alberto Gonzalez, Wil Nieves and Roger Bernadina (none of whom should be counted on for their bats). It’s a versatile – if not spectacular – bench.


Braintrust:

This is the area where the Nats improved the most. It really appeared as though Manny Acta was in way over his head as a rookie manager and had no idea how tough it would really be in DC. I don’t think Acta was as bad a manager as some Nats fans feel he is, but he certainly seemed overwhelmed by what transpired under his leadership. Riggleman is a grizzled veteran of managing baseball and should be able to handle the task of building a team from the ground up.

Riggleman will be aided by new rookie general manager Mike Rizzo. Rizzo replaced Jim Bowden who reminded me more of a New York City “Rolex” watch street vendor. I don’t expect Rizzo to build Rome in a day, but judging by the moves he’s made this off-season you can say Rome has had the ground-breaking ceremony. For the first time since their arrival in Washington, it appears as though the Nats have a clear focus and direction – something most successful major league franchises have – which is nice. It finally feels as though we have a major league team to root for and Rizzo needs to be given credit for providing it.

Overall, I think the Nats have the pieces in place to win far more games than they did last year. The trick is, the Nats really avoided that major injury last year – except for Jordan Zimmermann and if you claim your biggest injury that crippled your team last year was to your rookie starting pitcher, you had bigger problems than the injury itself. I can think of two players who – if they spend significant time on the Disabled List – would ruin any chances of making any marked improvement over last year’s record: Ryan Zimmerman and Adam Dunn. However, the rest of the roster seems to be able to sustain itself if the starter goes down (I guess that could also be seen as a drawback…).

The Nats will certainly need a few things to fall their way in order to avoid a last-place finish again this year, but the Braves did try to unload Derek Lowe, they did trade away Javier Vazquez for what essentially amounts to a 4th outfielder on most rosters (Melky Cabrera) and now comes word that Jair Jurrjens may be missing significant time. They could be hitching their wagons to the oft-injured Tim Hudson and the second year phenom Tommy Hanson.

The Mets are a mess organizationally. Beyond Johan Santana, the staff is a grease fire. The position players have tons of question marks. The Mets could be poised for a serious decline this year. And one never knows about whether or not the Marlins can continue to sustain success while selling off all usable parts for prospects.

As constructed, I believe the Nats have the potential to win 70 or so games this year – or at least avoid losing 100+ games for the third straight year. In any event, I’m ready to get Spring Training out of the way and get into playing meaningful baseball again.

Wh**ptee - D**

Two Cheaters Side-by-Side

I’m not going to jump up and down. I won’t.

I know the Nationals desperately needed an adequate back up catcher for Jesus Flores. I know they needed a catcher who could start for when Jesus Flores goes on the disabled list for an extended stay (like he has the past few years).

The Nats did that – and they did so by inking a sure-fire Hall of Fame catcher in the twilight of his career. Ivan “Pudge” Rodriguez.

I put the “Pudge” in quotes not because he uses that as his nickname, rather because I cannot believe the media still has the audacity to use it. I mean, really, does this REALLY look like a guy who should be called “Pudge?”:

That doesn’t even look like the same guy. And don’t normal humans typically put on weight over the course of time. The dude’s 38 and looks like he lost 30-40 pounds in the past couple of years. This is a professional athlete who’s supposed to be building muscle and working out and he LOST that much?

If I were Carlton Fisk, I’d throw up in my mouth every time I hear that hack Karl Ravech from ESPN call Ivan Rodriguez “Pudge.”

I know it’s not been proven, I know I am only speculating and no, I cannot prove anything, but if steroids were to help any one position on the field more than any other it would be catcher – and Rodriguez played for the Rangers, the same team Jose Canseco was playing for when Canseco was handing out syringes like lollipops at a bank drive-thru window.

Again, no proof, but COME ON.

I appreciate that the Nats are trying to improve the team on the field and I honestly believe this move will help the team in a desperate need area. I will continue to root for the Nationals to improve, but I will NOT root for Ivan Rodriguez. I hope to God that Jesus Flores plays 162 games per season for the next two years and Ivan Rodriguez never sees the field. I know it’s unrealistic, but I don’t care.

Ivan Rodriguez will make the hall of Fame someday strictly because of his offensive numbers because that’s all that most members of the BBWA care about anymore anyway. They’ll overlook his laziness behind the plate in favor of that rocket arm that was bolstered artificially be steroids. They’ll ignorantly put him in failing to take into account that he probably would never have eclipsed the real Pudge for games behind the plate because the only way he could’ve possibly pulled it off was to inject himself with a substance that allowed him to do so.

Bully for you “Pudge.” You keep on sticking around and continue looking as skinny as a high-school freshman playing flute in the band while living the lie of an ex-steroid user. I’ll not root for you and I would sincerely hope nobody else in Natstown does either.

A Clean Sweep Of Gold And Silver For Zimm

Ryan Zimmerman Takes The Gold Glove and Silver Slugger Awards

Ryan Zimmerman pulled off a rare sweep last week as he took home two of baseball’s post-season awards (although they are of lesser significance than some others).

Zimmerman captured the Gold Glove Award and the Silver Slugger award in the National League this year. Unlike the Rookie of the Year or the Most Valuable Player, these awards are given out to one player at each position and Zimmerman earned both awards for National League third basemen.

All-in-all it was a great year for the Nationals’ young third-sacker. He went to his first All-Star game this year and now has added two yearly achievement awards to his resume which is growing each year. On top of all that, Zimmerman signed a contract extension with the Nats earlier this year which bought out the last two years of arbitration as well as the first three years of his free-agency. The deal will pay him $45,000,000 over the course of his contract (plus tons of incentives) and will culminate in 2013 with a $14,000,000 salary.

Zimmerman had a career year this year with career highs in AVG (.292), OBP (.364), SLG (.525), OPS (.888), HR (33), and R (110). He also played in 157 games at 3B.

Of course, what Nats fans are hoping is that this is just the start of a budding superstar career for Zimm. Hopefully the team continues to build around him and put the pieces in place to help him succeed.

Good Business or Evil Empire? Or Somewhere In Between?

Senator Palpatine and Anakin Skywalker Looking Over Their Empire

Now that the 2009 season has come to a close it’s time to start talking about off-season issues.

An interesting topic was on the docket this morning as the folks on Baseball This Morning (XM-175 from 7:00 – 10:00 Eastern) discussed some of the issues facing the general managers this week as they begin the general managers’ off-season meetings. The question was posed, “if you could change one thing about baseball, what would that be?”

A lot of listeners called in and discussed things like: (a) whether or not to let the National League get the DH (or force the American League to lose the DH); (b) whether or not to continue to allow the World Series home-field advantage be determined by the All-Star game or to go by some other merit based achievement; (c) the expansion or abolition of instant replay; and the most popular (d) what to do about the economic disparity of the sport.

After listening to the entire show and now hearing former Nationals general manager Jim Bowden expand on the topic, I have decided to give my cents to the argument on how to make the economic situation better.

When first addressing this subject, the immediate, knee-jerk reaction that everyone wants to touch upon is a “salary cap.” Many people point to the NFL and the NBA as successful examples of how a salary cap works. Well, I’ll admit that I don’t watch any professional basketball (it sucks) but I remember the 1980’s successful franchises: Boston, Los Angeles and Detroit (and eventually Chicago). The last two franchises to win the championships? Boston and Los Angeles and recently Detroit won a couple as well. It’s not like the NBA is spreading the wealth.

The NFL which is supposed to be king actually works under a much more stringent cap than any other professional league with a cap. Over the course of the 15 years the NFL has operated under a salary cap, the league has seen 11 different teams win the big one while MLB has only seen nine over that same period of time. But a little further analysis shows that despite having more teams make the playoffs every year, the NFL has sent 20 of its 32 teams to the Super Bowl while MLB has sent 16 of its 30 teams to the World Series. Not exactly a huge difference and the NFL has a hard cap. Even further, the cap really hasn’t helped defeat the notion of building a sustained winner – Pittsburgh, Denver, New England and Indianapolis have all proven to be perennial powerhouses in the NFL and make the playoffs seemingly every year and Pittsburgh, Denver and New England all have multiple Super Bowl championships in the salary cap era (Pittsburgh has been to three Super Bowls, won two of them; New England has been to five Super Bowls, won three of them; and Denver has been to and won two Super Bowls).

It seems like MLB’s economic problems all stem from one team: The New York Yankees. The Yankees spend the kind of money that the other 29 teams simply cannot generate on their own – but is a salary cap really the answer?

The current economic system of “revenue sharing” is working according to the folks who make a living covering these sorts of things – the good folks at Baseball Prospectus. In an article published on August 12th by Shawn Hoffman, B.P. posits that the system needs some tweaking but essentially the system may be a better fit for baseball than the hard cap of the NFL or the soft cap of the NBA.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a solid subset of franchises that's fully
satisfied with the status quo going forward. But the thing is, baseball's
current revenue sharing system has actually worked pretty well—the goal is to
balance competition and profitability, and MLB has had a pretty good share of
both over the past few years. If the owners were to completely reinvent the
wheel for the next CBA, they would be taking on a significant amount of risk,
which really isn't necessary given how well the current system has worked.

Mr. Hoffman goes into a little detail as to how the current revenue sharing system works – albeit an over-simplified version - but he does a great job of breaking down the system into material that a dope like me can understand.

Essentially the current system takes the amount of money a team spends over the “threshold,” assigns a percentage of that money as form of “luxury tax” and combines that with the revenue generated from national media coverage and splits that pot between baseball’s 30 teams. Currently, only the Yankees are paying the luxury tax.

We can run through an example. The teams brought in about $6 billion in revenue
last year, and will probably be right around that figure again in 2009. (I'm not
counting the half-billion or so that flows into MLB Advanced Media and MLB
Network, but doesn't reach the teams themselves.) Let's assume that about 20
percent, or $1.2 billion, came from national sources. That means each team would
collect about $40 million.

To me this means that the clubs who are the beneficiaries of the revenue that the Yankees (and a couple of other teams) are throwing into the pot, they’d be loads better than they are currently.

Here’s where I will veer from the Mr. Hoffman’s theory. Since the Yankees seem to have a bottomless pit of money, let’s test that theory and make it a “dollar-for-dollar” system. That way, if the Yankees want to push the payroll to $250,000,000 every year, so be it – they’ll just continue to pay a higher luxury tax than anyone else. I’d even see if I can push it one step further. Perhaps you could penalize teams that go over the payroll threshold by taking away a percentage of the national media income the league gets from Fox, ESPN and TBS. This could be offset by only airing a certain number of Yankee games on the national networks, but it will certainly make the ratings at YES go up as they carry more games and the demand for the network goes up.

It’s an overly simple answer to a much more complex problem. But it seems to me that if a moron like me can come up with something, then the folks who know these things a lot better than I do can get something done.

At the end of the day, I am strongly against a salary cap. I cannot watch the NBA anymore (though it may have less to do with salary structure and more to do with the style of play of the modern game) and I can’t help but notice that what the NFL touts as “parity” to me looks more like “mediocrity.”

I honestly believe that while I hate watching the Yankees win a World Series that they essentially bought, this sort of thing is good for baseball in the long-run. Over the course of history, a good, entertaining play or film always gave you a hero to root for and a villain to root against. There is no more polarizing organization in all of sports than the Yankees. Baseball needs the Yankees to be good so everyone pays attention.

For what it’s worth, Shawn Hoffman does a much better job of describing why the system of MLB is better than the NFL or the NBA. I recommend purchasing a subscription to Baseball Prospectus and reading up on topics such as these because with the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement on the horizon, this could become a huge issue if the Yankees win it all two more times in a row.

Hey MLB.com - Eat a Dick

Apparently MLB.com Hired The Bobs As Market Researchers For MLB.com's "Customer Service"

Wow, just wow.

While I was on vacation, I received word from my bank that my checking account went negative because a charge came in from MLB.com stating that I had been charged for a monthly subscription to MLB.tv for the end of the regular season and then again they graciously charged me for MLB.tv’s post-season coverage as well.

The charge only amounted to about $30, but since I was on vacation and couldn’t take care of it, my bank charged me a $25- overdraft fee.

I also have EZ-Pass which we were using to cover tolls to and from Florida. EZ-Pass is set up to hit my account whenever there is less than $10- to cover tolls on my EZ-Pass account. Care to guess what happened? That’s right. EZ-Pass dinged me for another $25- which then gave me yet another $25- overdraft fee from my bank (who at least was kind enough to give EZ-Pass the money so I wouldn’t be arrested for tollbooth hopping).

Here’s where I admit to my fault: I purchased MLB.tv back in June so I could watch my beloved Nationals every night and I could watch them in HD since my computer has an HD monitor for viewing television broadcasts online. Well, about 30 seconds into my first game, I realized that my internet connection wasn’t conducive to receiving live broadcasts in HD so that feature was rendered pointless.

Add to that the fact that the Nationals really sucked this year and I saw no reason to continue paying for the service. Knowing that I had checked the little checkbox that said, “Please do not renew my subscription when the current subscription expires” I just let it go dormant. Well, the “good” folks at MLB.tv didn’t see it that way. On July 27th they hit me for $19.95. They did so again on August 27th. And then again on September 27th (while I was in Florida) and added to it the post-season subscription (that I didn’t ask for). So that’s $70-. Not a big deal, but they did add another $50- in overdraft fees bringing the grand total to $120-. Usually no big deal, but we were on vacation and came back from Florida with no expendable cash.

Again, my fault for not checking my account thoroughly enough during July and August and noting that MLB.tv had charged me despite my not using the service.

Let's go Back in time a bit...

Last year when I signed up for Gameday Audio through MLB.com, I was enrolled in a subscription for Sports Illustrated despite the fact I asked them to not give me the free three months trial subscription. I got it anyway and cancelled the subscription after receiving my first magazine (I hate Sports Illustrated). The “good” folks at S.I. told me that they cancelled my subscription but that I’d continue to receive the magazine for the three free months. I said, “fine.” I have friends who have birds and they could use the magazines as cage liners.

Well, when the three free months ended, I was hit with a one-year subscription charge from S.I. for about $90-. It hit the same day that my XM radio renewal hit for $85 which, of course, threw my account negative and incurred another $50 in overdraft fees.

The process of recouping my costs was as excruciating as a non-anesthetized root canal. I spoke with countless “customer service” representatives at S.I. who all told me that I could not contact any managers or anyone in their finance department via phone – the only way they could receive a message from me directly was BY FAX! At least six different times I had to have a friend of mine who works at my bank send the finance department faxes of the transactions which caused my account to go negative as well as a letter on official bank letterhead explaining how to refund the money. SIX TIMES. I called Sports Illustrated EVERY SINGLE DAY trying to get this rectified – and while I was going through this fiasco which took close to three weeks to resolve, EZ-Pass hit me again and I got hit with another $25- overdraft.

The whole situation became comical. My brother suggested that after my fourth fax which they claimed the never received I should send one fax every hour which states, “If you feel you’ve received this fax in error – then give me my fucking money.” My friend at the bank theorized that the finance department was actually run by a group of people who all worshipped a worker droid that collected faxes off the fax machine and deposited them into the shredder.

Anyway, after about three weeks, Sports Illustrated finally gave me my money back as well as gave me $50- of the $75- they were responsible for in overdraft fees.

Needless to say, I recommend that everyone out there NOT subscribe to Sports Illustrated.

Fast forward to last week. I found the phone number for “customer service” at MLB.com and contacted them about my problem this year (in which they charged me four months worth of fees for one month worth of service). I spoke with a nice young man who went over the account with me and saw my login history and noticed that I stopped using the service when my one month subscription ran out and helped me put in the request for a refund. I also asked for the pie in the sky in the form of my $50- in overdraft fees which this transaction caused but I thought it was a stretch. He said he’d make a note about it, but frequently when the finance department of MLB.com issues refunds they do not refund overdraft fees. I said that I understood that but it would be nice to have that note in there.

We ended the conversation with him saying that I’ll get my $70 but that I’d have to wait and see what the finance department says about the $50-. I’ll receive an e-mail within 7-10 days regarding the refund.

Well, late last night – while I was watching the Phillies/Dodgers game - I got the e-mail which stated:

Dear Valued Subscriber:Your request for a refund in connection with your 2009
MLB.TV Premium Monthly Subscription subscription has been denied in accordance
with the terms of your purchase Should you wish to discuss your subscription
further, please contact Customer Support toll-free at
1-866-800-1275. Sincerely,MLB.com

So not only were they not going to give me my $50- in overdraft charges, they weren’t going to give me my $70- either.

I was a bit miffed.

I waited until they opened this morning and spoke with another “customer service” representative. I expressed my displeasure at the decision and she explained away by stating: “the box you checked was for automatic renewal of a YEARLY subscription and not the monthly subscription. The monthly subscription automatically renews and said so in the disclosure. You need to read it more carefully.” I then asked why they would even give me the option to check the box for non-renewal if I wasn’t signing up for the yearly subscription (when you sign up, you are asked on the front page which service you want, the monthly or yearly; after that you are taken to another page to process payment at which point you are offered the checkbox – so I again ask, why offer the option of non-renewal on the monthly page if your intent is not to offer it no matter what choice you make?). Her response? “I’m not sure, but I don’t work in billing.”

At this point I ask to speak to the person who made the decision not to refund my money. She says that those people don’t have phones or e-mail accessible to the general public. SOUNDS A LOT LIKE THE FAX-EATING DROIDS AT SPORTS ILLUSTRATED.

Exasperated, I asked “well, where do I go from here.” She informed me that she will make a separate request for a refund of my $120- and that I should receive an e-mail within 7-10 days. After that I asked what my options are when this second request is inevitably declined and she told me that I can call back and ask to speak with a manager. I asked if I could do that right now and she said none are available.

In the meantime, my account still sits negative. Luckily this is my travel account that I use for my play money so it’s not affecting mortgage payments or food or heat but it’s still pissing me off.

Sufficed to say, if there are any baseball fans out there who use MLB.com’s services and pay for them – I hope nothing ever goes wrong for you because getting through to anyone who can actually help you is darn near impossible.

MLB is a multi-billion dollar industry. For years there have been questions on whether or not the sport has lost touch with its bread-and-butter fan base.

I’d say these examples answer that question.

When Baseball Is This Bad - I Turn To College Hockey

The ECAC Makes a Bad Decision - And I'm Angry

Well it’s been a while since my last post and for very good reason: this baseball season sucks. The Nats were pathetic and the one team I am rooting against in the post-season (the Yankees) just swept their way past the Twins while the only club that could give them any competition whatsoever (the Red Sox) were swept by the Angels.

Because the thought of Alex ROIDriguez and Mark Te$$eira raising a championship trophy makes me want to vomit on my own shoes, I instead am going to focus on something that ordinarily makes me happy – college hockey.

If you recall from my very first entry, I reserve the right to not talk about the Nationals or baseball in general so that I can focus on writing something I care about when neither of those topics give me anything worth writing about.

I recently read on USCHO.com the pre-season predictions on how the college hockey season will play out in the 2009-10 ECAC season. Typically I follow the Clarkson Golden Knights and the Cornell Big Red.

I was excited to read the pre-season column looking at each school by USCHO’s ECAC correspondent Brian Sullivan. Sullivan’s been covering the ECAC for years now for USCHO and he generally has a good bead on the schools and he always manages to get great interviews with coaches because he’s got a good relationship built in.

It was a bit disappointing reading his wrap up of the Knights but it’s hard to argue with his reasoning – at least he thinks Cornell’s up for another great year.

So while it’s exciting for me that ECAC hockey is starting up, I did receive some sad news. A buddy of mine informed me that the championship rounds of the end of season ECAC Hockey Tournament is being moved from my back yard here in Albany, NY down to Atlantic City, NJ. I want the person responsible for that decision to tell me why they chose Atlantic City.

In the ECAC, you have only one school who’s fans travel really well: Cornell. So if Cornell makes it to the semis, you know you’ll have great attendance from them. Other than that, fans will travel modestly to get to the championships if their team makes it, but only one school from the ECAC (Princeton) is in New Jersey and Trenton is a hike from Atlantic City.

Of the 12 schools in the ECAC, six are from upstate, NY (Clarkson, St. Lawrence, Colgate, Cornell, Rensselaer and Union), one is from New Hampshire (Dartmouth), one is from Massachusetts (Harvard), one is from Rhode Island (Brown) and two are from Connecticut (Yale and Quinnipiac). So they move the championship rounds to NEW JERSEY?

Seems to me that if Albany, NY wasn’t central enough for them the least they could’ve done to maximize attendance would be to move it to Springfield, MA – that way the New England schools would travel a bit better.

Beyond that, you’re going to send college kids to a city that’s known for debauchery, gambling and prostitution? How’s THAT a good idea? I know most of these kids are Ivy Leaguers and the brightest minds out there, but they are still kids.

This just sounds like a really bad idea.

In March, I will purchase by tickets for the final season of ECAC hockey championships at the Knickerbocker Arena here in Albany and hope that Clarkson and/or Cornell is there. If not, I’ll still attend and watch some great college hockey – all the while lamenting that it will be my last opportunity to do so for at least three years; because I’m not driving six hours to Atlantic City for it.

2009 has been a colossal disappointment.

When is Spring Training?