Here's a tale of two players and two teams: The Rockies look to hand a third-base job to unproven Garrett Atkins. They appear to justify that with the theory that he'll graft better to the bigs if he doesn't have to worry about his job. The Phillies - or at least Charlie Manuel - talk like Placido Polanco has every chance to beat out Chase Utley at second base.
These two examples could be used to illustrate opposing managerial philosophies. One school says bring them along slowly and then give them lots of time and support. The other school says make everyone earn their playing time.
I'm definitely in the Charlie Manuel camp. It's not because I'm an advocate of "tough love." Not at all. It's because if I was a baseball player, I'd play it that way. I wouldn't want any preferential treatment. No special favors. And every day, even if I was an established regular, I'd go out there thinking, "one of these young guys could take my job if I don't do this or if I stop doing that." Like Bill James, I'd look at myself and my game and my record in the worst possible light. You always want to be on top of the "worst possible light" interpretation of your work.
Then there is the whole team concept. I'd understand that it was my job to groom my (eventual) replacement. After all, the earth could split open tomorrow and I could fall in. And my team would be without a replacement who is as good as he might have been had I done my duty and coached him here and there when I had the chance. The smart player, even if he is just looking after his own self-interest, understands that a rising tide lifts all boats. How do you make the big bucks? Play on a team that goes to the playoffs. How do you make the playoffs? Buy into the team concept.
So that's just the way it is. With the amount of money the players make these days, no one should be crying about job security. If you can't bring your A game because some older guy or some younger guy is playing well and threatening to take your job, then you should go be an insurance salesman. Because that's no kind of pressure to crack under. Even at the minor-league minimum, dudes are still making six to ten times more than the people they went to high school with -- if their former classmates have full-time work. You'd think that if you had a job that gave you a six-to-ten year headstart, financially, on your peers, you'd think then you wouldn't cry about how you can't play without a security blanket.
My guess is the majority of players would understand what I'm saying. Over the years I've read a lot of editorials by fans who think that teams have messed with so-and-so's development. Or they didn't give so-and-so a fair 300 at-bats to prove that his .111 batting average was just a fluke. I once felt that way about Chad Hermansen. Maybe a guy can yo-yo from level to level too quickly. There could be something to it. Perhaps the timing of promotions and demotions makes a difference. I'm not sure. But more and more I think the good players will make the most of their chances. And the bad players will make excuses.
I suspect the real reasons the Rockies are handing the job to Atkins have nothing to do with not troubling his beautiful mind with competition. They may spin it like they are clever, but all they are really doing is covering their own backs if he flops. "Don't blame us - we gave him a fair chance." And they are covering up the fact that he's a big question mark and they've done little to protect themselves if they lose him to injury or if he just plain sucks in March and April. I guess (a) the Rockies don't have anyone to compete with him and (b) the Rockies have no plans to acquire someone to compete with him if he tanks in April and May. Seeing what they have in the minors, it's hard to blame them for believing the third base situation will take care of itself sooner or later regardless of what Atkins does with his guaranteed half-year of playing time.
Where am I going with this? It all bears on the Tike Redman story unfolding this weekend. Joe Rutter and Dejan Kovacevic both have stories today in which Tike Redman says some things about his disappointment in the team for seeking another outfielder.
I don't blame Tike for any of his comments, though he doesn't look good to me. He doesn't have a lot of experience talking to the media and then seeing how his comments will look and play in the newspaper. I don't think there was one story in all of 2004, in either the PG or the T-R, where he was the main character.
To make a long story short, Tike Redman has done nothing to prove that he deserves a huge chunk of playing time in 2005. I would not be afraid of giving him PT, but I would also be working hard to make sure I don't start the season with the assumption that he's going to get 450 at-bats or more if anyone gets hurt. He had his Garrett Atkins year in 2004. The team stuck with him. If the team brings in a Placido Polanco, Tike Redman should suck it up like Chase Utley. If he's as good as he thinks he is, he can be confident that all the world will see that when the games begin.
I'll all about acquiring Byrnes. He's not expensive, he's good, he could be getting better, he's at least as good if not better than the other options we're looking at right now. The folks in Oakland love the guy. He'll fit right in here. I'd be happy to deal pitching prospects for him. I'm not sure which ones I'd deal, but pitching prospects generally have a lot more trade value the year before they debut than they have the year after they debut. Sell high.
One last thing: If Kip and Ollie are healthy and taking their turns in early April, this is the Pirates' year. We talked about this before the Steelers' season got going. When teams are getting better, they arrive sooner than expected. The Bucs are under everyone's radar this year. If we get Byrnes and 60 starts from Ollie and Kip, I think we have an 85-win team, or better with a break or a two, and I think the Bucs are looking at a good chance of making the playoffs. We can talk about 2006 later. Right now I'm looking at 2005 and I like what I see.