This week’s roundtable takes a look at the dilemma of baseball’s sanctimonious “Unwritten Rules,” an injury that may change the course of the AL Pennant race, and one last look at the trade deadline and which team made the best deal to load up for the stretch run.
Strike 1: What are your thoughts on the famed “unwritten rules of baseball” that raised their head in Detroit this week? Antiquated relic of years gone by, or relevant necessity to keep the game what it is?
Matt Lindner: Some things – the ex-girlfriend who hated your parents and snorted when she laughed, your varsity letter jacket – are better left in the past. The “unwritten rules of baseball” fall under this category. If your team cannot field a bunt, you do not deserve to have a no-hitter. Period. Baseball in and of itself is viewed as an antiquity among many in the relevant advertising demographics. The last thing we need is the silliness of unwritten rules dragging the sport back into the 19th century.
Garrett Wilson: The unwritten rules are kind of ridiculous if only because they seem to be applied arbitrarily and open to broad interpretation because, you know, they aren’t written down. At the end of the day, they are really just convenient cover for any team to justify being mad at another team that they don’t like. If these rules really are so sacred, then the league should just actually write them down so that guys don’t have to resort to throwing at other guy’s heads in order to enforce the unwritten rules.
Brian Packey: Maybe 21st century technology, providing me with so many different opinions, is playing tricks with my mind — and the animosity toward the “unwritten rules of baseball” (which have actually been printed plenty of times over the last 25 years) has always been there — but it’s amazing to me how something that has been so integral to my understanding of America’s Pastime is all of a sudden up for such serious debate. Again, many of the “unwritten” rules of baseball are well-documented and understood by the majority of baseball players and fans. Generally, the unwritten rules of baseball are meant to maintain respect and sportsmanship, and I don’t think anyone would disagree that these are important characteristics to uphold. When the respect and sportsmanship of the game is disregarded, it’s undoubtedly going to elicit an emotional (or other) response from the opposing team. The “rules” are in place to allow the teams/players to police that in a way umpires or referees reasonably can’t, which is what makes baseball unique and one of the main reasons why it’s, to me, the best sport.
Joe Lucia: Ah yes, the unwritten rules of baseball…. pretty much, something that baseball purists cling to whenever something happens that they don’t like. I think they’re largely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, as a lot of them are common sense. (Gee, throwing at a guy’s head is bad?)
Daniel Moroz: I’m a big fan of “don’t be a jerk”, and especially “don’t try to intentionally injure someone”. How the players want to police that is up to them, but I’m really not a fan of a manager telling a pitcher he has to hit a guy or whatnot. And winning baseball games >>>> retribution, so intentionally putting a man on base in a close game to show that you’re “sticking up” for your teammates isn’t a great idea, in my opinion.
Pat Lackey: I dunno, some unwritten rules (don’t throw the ball at a guys head) are good, while some (don’t bunt to break up a no-hitter even in a close game, whatever Tony La Russa’s offended about today) aren’t. I guess Daniel’s rule is good. Don’t be a jerk. That certainly would’ve kept the shenanigans during the Tigers/Angels game to a minimum, since pretty much everyone involved was being a jerk.
Strike 2: Clay Buchholz appears to be out for the remainder of the season. Does this have any lasting impact on the AL Pennant race?
Brian: I’d say definitely, considering there’s no telling how reliable Bedard will be tomorrow, let alone two months from now. And, oh yeah, Lackey and Wakefield are no good. Now, there’s a chance Buckholz comes back for the playoffs, but even if he doesn’t isn’t that why they went out and bought all the best bats in baseball?
Pat: Nah. The Sox are good enough without him and eight games up in the wild card race right now. That pitching staff could end up hurting them in the playoffs if, especially if Bedard gets hurt, but I’d be awfully surprised if it keeps them out of the playoffs.
Joe: Yeah. Their rotation is now Beckett-Lester-Wakefield-Lackey-Bedard, and if one of those guys falters, Andrew Miller is next in line. Lackey has been largely ineffective thus far during his contract, and Boston really doesn’t have a better option. Running him or Miller out there every fifth day is a major downgrade from Buchholz, and Boston has to be thanking their lucky stars that they went out and got Bedard when they did.
Matt: Absolutely. Boston is relying on guys like John Lackey and Erik Bedard to carry them down the stretch. If this is seven years ago, this is fantastic news, but it’s 2011 and both of those gentlemen are shadows of their former selves. The AL East is rapidly turning into the NL Central — the division that nobody wants to win but somebody has to.
Garrett: Losing Buchholz won’t cost the BoSox a playoff spot, but it might result in them being the Wild Card instead of AL East champs. Where it will really hurt them though is in the post-season since Clay’s absence will force Boston to start either Wakefield or Lackey at least once in a series, possibly even both since Erik Bedard’s arm will probably fall off before October. That is a scary proposition, even with a juggernaut lineup like the Red Sox have.
Daniel: Not really. The Red Sox are more than good enough to make the playoffs without Buchholz. Once they’re in it might have a slightly larger impact, but a bad pitcher can certianly outpitch a good one over the stretch of 2-4 games.
Strike 3: Which team made the single best move at the deadline and why?
Pat: There were a lot of trades that I thought were interesting, but for sheer overall potential impact I’ll take a different route from the group and say the Ubaldo Jiminez trade. The Indians need another pitcher in that rotation to really keep pace with the Tigers, but they gave up a ton to do so. Because of that, the trade could have an immediate impact, but then it might take three years to sort out the real tally in this trade, between Pomeranz and White’s development in Colorado and how Jiminez deals with moving to the American League.
Daniel: The Braves picking up one of the league’s best center-fielders in Michael Bourn without having to give up a top prospect was pretty darn good. They got what they needed for the present without really hurting their future. Honorable mention to Toronto for turning a bunch of relievers into Colby Rasmus.
Garrett: My vote goes to the Giants for picking up Carlos Beltran. With a lineup as weak as their lineup was, you can’t really ask for much more than acquiring the best bat on the market. Not only does he give them a potent middle of the order bat, but he also finally gives the Giants a break from the constant juggling of outfielders they’d been doing in order to get all of their below average outfielders their fair share of at-bats.
Joe: Based on what happened with Buchholz, the Bedard trade is looking like a genius move right now. But I have to go with my Braves picking up Michael Bourn for a pile of non-factors. The team needed a leadoff hitter and a center fielder, and they got it with one player. Any time you can do that without giving up a major part of your future, you have to do it.
Matt: The Blue Jays for getting Colby Rasmus without giving up a whole lot in return beyond a steady reliever in Frasor. Rasmus was probably the best outfielder available at the trade deadline in terms of what he can add to an offensive attack. He and Bautista are going to form a solid core for that lineup for years to come, leading Toronto back to relevance sooner rather than later.
Brian: I know they’re already fading, but I really liked what the Pirates did by adding Ryan Ludwick and Derrek Lee at the cost of virtually nothing. And as much as I think they improve the Pirates’ lineup, I almost like the moves more simply for the fact that it gives Bucs fans the prolonged belief (as unreasonable as it might be) that they’re contenders this year and management was not going to pass up on the once in 20 years opportunity to make a run at it.
