The Griff: Then And Now

Then:

As welcome as the Blue Jays' sudden notion of signing Vernon Wells to a long-term deal through 2014 is, make no mistake about it, this is president Paul Godfrey's baby. Wells and Roy Halladay are the twin faces of the franchise in public. That has added value to a former politician. It's not the same for baseball-first GM J.P. Ricciardi.

"Any decision you make, the hardest thing to do is not have your emotions involved," Ricciardi said cryptically to Yahoo!Sports.com on Tuesday.

Ricciardi's emotions with regard to Wells have always been on the side of letting him walk at the end of his current contract. Either that or deal him for value. But Godfrey is the one who responds to his emotions like a fan.

...

Now, it's all about Wells and how much Godfrey feels he is worth to the franchise as both an on-field talent and as an off-field ambassador. The guy can play. But history says that despite his five-tool skills, Wells is not one of J.P.'s guys, just as Delgado was not a part of Ricciardi's five, er, seven-year solution.

If this Wells seven-year extension is done, it will be in spite of Ricciardi. Make no mistake, even though the Jays' reported opening salvo of $126 million (plus $5.6 million for '07) is, as Wells told the Star's Allan Ryan, "in the ballpark," it will not be enough, as currently written, to keep him in the ballpark. Wells needs the Jays to offer more per year, through 2014, than the Cubs are paying Alfonso Soriano. That simple.

That $136 million Soriano jackpot was the guiding light when I suggested, on the final day of the winter meetings, that the Jays should offer Wells a contract for eight years of $138.6 million, including $5.6 million remaining on the final year of his current pact. It wasn't a number pulled out of a hat.

...

For the Jays, this isn't the same scenario as when they decided to jettison Delgado. Since then, the club has increased payroll by almost 100 per cent, it owns the Rogers Centre and the Canadian dollar has risen more than 25 cents against its U.S. counterpart. This is a brave new world, flush with cash and cross-marketing opportunities for owner Ted Rogers. Wells is the first mega free agent of this new Jays era. It's possible they might sign him, but this was clearly not the way they envisioned the winter unfolding.

And please don't compare this to the A's losing Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi, Miguel Tejada and the big three starters, including, this year, Barry Zito. There was never any emotion in A's scenarios. That was pure Moneyball.

This is not Moneyball. There has never been a chapter dealing with "replacement value" for fan favourites, which is the difference between A's and Jays and why on most nights you can fire a cannon through the Oakland Coliseum and not hit anyone.

The Jays are doing the right thing with Wells, but it might be too little, too late. Place the odds at 30-70 that the Jays, with a late start, can have a deal done by the spring.

Now:

4. From Carlos Delgado to Vernon Wells: passing an albatross baton.

When Ricciardi first arrived, he sneered at Delgado's four-year, $68 million contract negotiated by the previous regime, labelling it an "albatross" around the team's neck. But in the 2006 off-season, after exhausting all trade possibilities for Wells, Ricciardi oversaw the signing of a $126 million, seven-year deal for the centre fielder.

You know, a lot of the media eulogizing going on about JP Ricciardi's tenure as the Toronto Blue Jays general manager has focused on his strained relationship with the media. How his "arrogance extended to reporters and columnists". Or how he was "brash, cocky and always ready to talk". But when you read things like this, you kind of get why he thought guys like Richard Griffin were douchebags. You can't browbeat a guy for not wanting to make a deal, then 3 years later pretend he did. Unless, of course, you're a bitter member of the Toronto media riding a 48 hour hate-boner.

An Open Letter to Greg Gutfeld of FOX News' "Red Eye"

Greg,

I must apologize for my initial reaction to your comments on Red Eye last week re: the Canadian Military. From your joking that our men and women wanted the year off to "take a breather to do some yoga, paint landscapes, run on the beach in gorgeous white capri pants", and suggesting that perhaps it is "time to invade this ridiculous country, they have no army", I quite obviously came to the mistaken conclusion that you lacked the respect for our country and our soldiers. My mistake, but I think you can understand. After all you said it yourself, I come from a ridiculous country. And your words were very layered and complex, so you have to understand my inability to discern the subtle hidden meanings contained within.

I should also apologize for misunderstanding the nature of your show. Simple and ridiculous as I am, I assumed that we should attach some layer of responsibility to words uttered on a cable news program, but you are patently a satirical program of the highest regard. But I still don't quite understand what the root of the satire here is, so maybe you can clear that up for me. Is it the nature of your network's news programming what you're poking fun at, or is it the Canadian military complex? I tend to think it can't be the latter since mocking the Canadian army and its soldiers would be quite clearly what we misinterpreted you as doing in the first place, but is it the former? Are you a sly devil, silently exposing the ignorant and uninformed nature of FOX News' programming? If so, I credit your for your courage. You're like a modern day Woodward and Burnstein (or is it Woodward and Lothrop? I'm sorry, we ridiculous Canadians are easily confused).

I must say though, the straightforward manner with which you have approached this apology has won me over as a supporter. It takes a lot of courage to bravely take responsibility for the misunderstandings of others, but I can read between the lines. The real victim is yourself, Mr. Gutfeld, who was the victim of such a horrible misunderstanding. And say no more, my friend, allow me to apologize on behalf of 30 million Canadians. We are irrational, ridiculous and sometimes we act before we think, but I know you'll find it in your heart to forgive us. You proved you were the bigger man today, I'm sure you'll continue to do so. I know I'll be there at 3am.

Regards,

Matthew Moore

P.S. You know, I hate to be dishonest. I won't be there at 3am. In fact, I don't see my television finding its way to FOX News at any point. And while we're at it, I didn't misinterpret you. You obnoxiously dismissed the contributions of the Canadian military on March 17th and there is no other reasonable interpretation of your words. Keeping this honesty train rolling, your program is either not a work of satire or a poorly constructed satire that did in fact poke fun at the Canadian military at the time where there is more traffic on the Highway of Heroes (google it) than ever. So I must admit, I wasn't particularly genuine at all in that e-mail. But isn't it kind of pathetic that I was still more genuine than you were in your own so-called "apology"?

Maybe I'm just an asshole...

But I took one look at the cover of the Toronto Sun today and had to laugh...


ACC Salutes AC/DC. Witty. Well, at least it would be. You know, if the show hadn't taken place at the Rogers Centre. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a quality pun?

As for the show, it was AC/DC live. You expect a lot, you get even more.

A Question About the Kanyairportgate

So Kanye West was arrested this morning at LAX for "felony vandalism", a charge the result of his scuffle with two "journalists" from online gossip rag TMZ. Mr. West and his assistant were en route to boarding a flight to Honolulu when they were confronted by a number of paparazzi. Angered, the two forcefully removed the camera of a photographer and smashed it. After a verbal confrontation, West and his assistant were arrested.

Kanye West will be held to account for his actions, right or wrong. Continuing to remain unaccountable however is TMZ, its entire staff and its parent company Time Warner. It's entirely fair to assume that in the evidence of paparazzi, this situation would not have occurred. By virtue of that, it could be argued that this supposed "news" website, which by definition should exist solely to report on the news, is in fact making the news. Meanwhile TMZ's sister companies like CNN and People Magazine reap the benefit of the scuffle, posting a number of news articles for which they reap significant ad-benefits.

My question is this: how can the Governor of California, or the mayor of Los Angeles for that matter, expect the market to regulate itself with regards to paparazzi crossing the line when their very crossing of the line has an immediate and positive impact on the mainstream media's bottom line? Isn't it time to pass laws to indicate that paparazzi stalking, as it would be called anywhere outside of California, is every bit as criminal as the smashing of a camera?