Have you ever seen a professional athlete morph from silent slugger to whiny little bitch faster than Albert Pujols has?

First, Pujols criticized Mets Pitcher Tom Glavine after the ace shut down Pujols and the Cards in this year’s NLCS game 1.

“He wasn’t good. He wasn’t good at all,” Pujols said of Glavine, who threw seven innings of four-hit ball for the victory.

Then he criticized the scout who discovered him, saying the reason the Cardinals fired him was because he never believed in Pujols.

Now Pujols is whining that he should have won the NL MVP instead of Phillies 1B Ryan Howard.

“I see it this way: Someone who doesn’t take his team to the playoffs doesn’t deserve to win the MVP,” Pujols said in Spanish at a news conference organized by the Dominican Republic’s sports ministry.

Howard’s Phillies finished in second place in the NL East, way behind the Mets, and just barely missed out on the NL wild card. Pujols’ Cardinals won the NL Central and went on to win the World Series. Which is not to say that the Cardinals were very good during the regular season. In fact, the Phils won two more games than the Cards this year. Meanwhile, once he got his team to the playoffs, Pujols preceeded to fall off the face of the earth, going hitting only .200 in the World Series (3 for 15). Way to go, MVP.

After Sarah’s comprehensive post on Mark McGwire, I felt the need to weigh in. Because there’s one thing about the McGwire debate that bothers me more than anything else. Barry Bonds.

The McGwire decision will set a precedent. It will be the benchmark for how we vote on future tainted stars, most notably Bonds. And I don’t think the baseball writers have thought about that. Not really.

On the surface, denying McGwire isn’t so tough. He hit a bunch of homers and it’s easy to say he wouldn’t have been a Hall of Fame player without the homers and he wouldn’t have hit the homers without the roids. But voters will have to swallow hard before denying Bonds. Through 2006, Bonds leads all players in career walks (2,426) and intentional walks (645). He is 2nd on the list of all-time career home runs (734 (trailing Hank Aaron’s 755) and extra base hits (1,398), 3rd in at bats per home run (13.0), 6th in obp (on-base percentage) (.443), runs (2,152), slugging percentage (.608), and total bases (5,784), and 7th in RBIs (1,930). How do you keep the best player in the history of the game out of the HOF?

ESPN’s Jim Caple doesn’t think we should deny Bonds or McGwire. He writes, tongue-in-cheek:

You knew McGwire was taking andro in 1998’s home run chase and suspected he was taking something much stronger but nonetheless repeatedly wrote stories glorifying his deeds and crediting him with “saving baseball.” You now have no additional evidence other than those same old suspicions, but you are nonetheless repeatedly writing stories condemning his actions and blaming him for ruining baseball. Therefore you clearly must not vote for McGwire, because that was then and this is now.

Of course, there’s a problem with Caple’s argument. Because, we do know more now than we knew then. We know that McGwire was using steroids. At least, we know all that we feel we need to. When he went in front of Congress and passed on the chance to deny allegations that he was doping, McGwire essentially confessed.

SI writer Phil Taylor isn’t going to vote for McGwire, because he says McGwire’s legacy is steroid use, not home runs. That sounds like a pretty flimsy reason to me. How we view a player changes over time. Ten years ago McGwire’s legacy was home runs. He saved baseball, remember? Sure, right now, his legacy is steroids. But, ten years from now, when the steroids debate has died down, who knows? Maybe someday we’ll return to viewing Big Mac as a great power hitter, instead of a performance enhanced cheater. After all, this is the country that forgave Marion Barry, Kobe, and Ted Kennedy. The winds of public perception shift constantly. Here’s how Taylor describes his thought process on McGwire:

A debate is definitely necessary for McGwire, a serious internal debate. Is it fair to assume he used steroids? If he did, would he have been a Cooperstown-caliber player without them? Should we hold his steroid-use against him when we have no idea how many other players were doing the same thing?

Now this is where things get sticky. Am I the only one who gets nervous when baseball writers are trying to quantify things like, “would he have been a Cooperstown-caliber player without [steroids]?” I mean, is there anything more impossible to determine? Why even try? Well, Taylor isn’t afraid to try. He says:

Would he have been a Hall of Fame caliber player without them? McGwire is no Barry Bonds, who was headed for the Hall long before anyone suspected steroid use.

Oh god. Shoot me now.

You know, I don’t really care if McGwire gets into the Hall. But I hope against hope that I’ll never see the day when baseball writers are trying to decide if a player would have been good had he decided not to use steroids.

In the future, if a great player takes steroids, fails a drug test and is suspended, will that stop us from voting him into the HOF? What if Albert Pujols flunks a test and is suspended 50 games, but then returns to win three more MVPs? Will we block his path to Cooperstown? What about if Roger Clemens flunked a drug test?

As far as I’m concerned, we need to make a collective decision: either using steroids is a sin tantamount to betting on baseball and getting caught juicing should keep a player out of Cooperstown, or we’re just going to decide not to care all that much and treat steroids like any other drug.

If we decide that using steroids should keep a player out of the Hall, that’s fine. But baseball writers should remember that when they’re deciding not to vote for McGwire, they’re also deciding not to vote for Bonds and every great but possibly juiced player that comes after him.

Gordon Edes reports in this morning’s Boston Globe that a deal with J.D. (DL) Drew is looking more likely than ever for the Sox:

There is still contract language to be worked out, and some question about whether the fifth year of the deal is guaranteed. But the Red Sox are nearing the completion of a deal with J.D. Drew that would pay the free agent outfielder $14 million a year for a total package of around $70 million if he stays with Boston for a full five seasons.

$70 million?! Five seasons?? Are they insane? Perhaps, as Coley and Nick have intimated, the Red Sox have indeed become evil. But let it be said that the fan on the street has not yet signed on to this Faustian bargain. This morning, a friend and fellow fan put the problem succinctly: “He’s expensive and he breaks.” Not to mention the fact that if the 31-year old doesn’t get his way (i.e., millions upon millions of dollars based—still!—on his “potential” and “talent”) he just sits out, in typical Scott Boras-client fashion. (Makes me wonder what he was like in Little League.) BostonDirtDogs points out what should be obvious to all: the Sox could have had Johnny Damon, their fuzzy-faced and durable team mascot, for much less than that. Boston Herald columnist Gerry Callahan expresses the thoughts of many a Hub resident (the article is worth reading in full, if only to savor Callahan’s use of the phrase “apparent man crush”) on the apparently unstoppable arrival of Nancy Drew:

While Sox fans are starved for someone, anyone, who represents an upgrade from last season’s roster, it is not easy to find a fan who is excited about the prospect of seeing Drew in a Sox uniform. For some reason, the paying customers seem to understand better than the Sox front office wonks that it ain’t all about OPS. Sometimes you’ve got to look at the character and the personality of a player before you walk down the aisle with him….This is a guy who has been on the disabled list seven times in eight seasons. He never has played more than 146 games (while Damon never has played fewer than 145). He has played for three teams in the past four years – how many franchise players do that?

…It would be one thing if the guy were resting on his laurels, but he never has had any laurels.

Damn skippy, Gerry. Damn skippy.

UNRELIABLE UPDATE: From the comments section of this post:

The Red Sox have agreed to a 5-year deal worth $74Million with JD Drew. It’ll be announced on Weds or Thurs, according to a friend of mine who is close friends with a scout for the SF Giants.

Today during my lunch break, I was watching “Around the Horn” at the pizza place (it was more of a “linner” or “dunch” break–I was on a late shift). I noticed they were talking about the Mark McGwire issue. Monday, the Hall of Fame ballots went out with his name on them. Not the did-he-or-didn’t-he-inject issue—that’s basically settled—but the would-you-or-wouldn’t-you-vote-for-him issue. But I couldn’t hear what they were saying, alas, because the sound was off. (What’s the point of having “Around the Horn” on at the pizza place if you’re not going to have the sound on, folks?) So I did some research.

The only guest who seems to have anything published (and easily find-able on the internet) so far is the Boston Globe’s Bob Ryan. He’s not voting for McGwire:

That glorious weekend in St. Louis eight years ago? I now feel I was used. And I’m sorry, but I cannot get past that sad day in March 2005 when Mark McGwire appeared before the House Government Reform Committee and became the first American citizen to invoke the 4 1/2 Amendment. Asked if he had used performance-enhancing substances, he said, “My lawyers have advised me that I cannot answer these questions without jeopardizing my friends, my family, and myself.”

And then there was this classic: “I’m not here to talk about the past,” he whimpered.

Well, Mark, if you can’t bring yourself to talk about your past, I don’t see any reason why we should waste time evaluating it.

(Another guest was our favorite here on UmpBump, Chicago Sun-Times scribe Jay Mariotti. But he hasn’t written on the issue yet, it seems. Let us take a moment to be sad about this. Okay, moving on.)

Of course, the AP, being the AP, has already conducted an informal poll: 

The Associated Press contacted about 150 of the approximately 575 people who are eligible to cast ballots. Of that number, 125 responded. Of those, 74 said they will not vote for McGwire, 23 will vote for him, 16 are undecided, five refused to say, five aren’t allowed to vote by their employers and two will abstain.

That means if all the undecideds and those refusing to say voted for McGwire, and everyone else voted, McGwire would need 84% of the rest to get into the Hall.

Hmm, so, okay, math. Unless the self-selecting sample that responded is extremely skewed, I’d say that McGwire’s chances of getting in are…remote. (Red Roof Inn, anyone?)

To get another perspective, I tried to find someone besides Tony LaRussa who thought Big Mac should be in the Hall. I had to go all the way to Canada. Canada! Folks, I give you Stephen Brunt:

The Hall of Fame is a place reserved for very good baseball players, not necessarily the same thing as very good human beings. Pete Rose is excluded because he violated a rule that is written on every clubhouse wall. McGwire did no such thing. There was no rule. And all the while he was encouraged, lauded, made wealthy — and exploited to make everyone associated with the game more wealthy as well.

McGwire ought to be in Cooperstown, where his plaque can serve as a permanent reminder of the hypocrisy of the times.

Shame on him. Shame on baseball. Shame on the commissioner. Shame on the press. Shame on those who perpetuated the myth and prospered.

Hmm. Even that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. I see a lot of shaming going on in that graf.

Let’s try AP sports columnist Tim Dahlberg, who points out that Maris himself isn’t in the Hall. (What, really?) Dahlberg invokes poor confused fans and grasping baseball bigwigs and then, as he gathers steam towards the end of his column, produces this tour-de-force:

McGwire became a very wealthy man playing baseball, and it wasn’t just because some team owner gave him his millions. That money came from fans who bought tickets, fans who scraped together enough money to bring their kids to the game to watch him play.

McGwire owes those fans something for their money.

Yeah, jagoff! Think of the children! Think of little Timmy. Tiny Tim! He sold his crutch to see you play!

But wait, there’s more:

If he didn’t do anything wrong, he should have taken the opportunity while under oath before Congress to say so. He didn’t, so now those fans and writers simply — and rightfully so — assume the worst.

McGwire may still some day go into the Hall of Fame. But it’s not going to happen until he comes clean — really clean.

You hear me, Mark? REALLY CLEAN!  Like hospital clean! Eat-off-the-floor clean! Zestfully clean!

I’m very upset. I need to go drink an entire bottle of wine, by myself, while watching Bridget Jones’s Diary and flipping through the Pottery Barn catalog. I’m just so overwhelmed thinking about the children. THE CHILDREN, MARK.

Oh, and if I could vote? I’d also go with “nay” on that one. Why? Well, because of the children, and little Timmy, and also the shame. But mostly just because even if there wasn’t a rule, there goddamn well shoulda been. You know? The players of today should know that integrity counts. And that even if there isn’t a rule, if it feels like cheating, it probably is. And you can make your millions and even break your records. But there’s a bunch of elitist media types waiting for you on the other side of the white light of retirement. And they will sit in judgment upon thee, and if you want admittance to the pearly gates of Cooperstown, you better remember it. Because goddammit, it was hard being the nerdy ones in high school. Now it’s your turn to pay, jock boy!

It’s that time of year again!

Time for every sportswriter in the country to open up that old word file, change the dates and team names, and perhaps add another clause about how sure they are:

Manny About To Be Traded. For Reals This Time. I Mean Seriously. It’s Definitely Gonna Happen. Oh And Also, This Time A Real Wolf Is Really Eating Our Sheep.

But I wouldn’t be following the rules if I didn’t say it: looks like it’s really going to happen this year.

All sources indicate that the Red Sox are definitely going to sign JD Drew to a ridiculous contract, and then definitely trade Manny, perhaps even as soon as this weekend. This will free up money to sign Matsuzaka and Julio Lugo, plus any team that wants Manny will almost certainly have to take on one of the Red Sox’ bad contracts – at least Matt Clement, possibly Mike Lowell, and maybe even both.

As of right now, the Giants look to be the front runners because they have pushed hardest for a Manny deal to try to fill the gaping hole left by Moises Alou and possibly Barry Bonds as well, but what no one can figure out is, who in the relatively prospect-free Giants system could be worth Manny Ramirez? Hence, much talk of a three team trade. Another good option seems to be the Dodgers, who need to replace the selfsame JD Drew, and were sorely in need of another big bat even when they had Drew, and are loaded with hot prospects to trade. The Padres, Astros, and Rangers also seem to be in the hunt.

Here are a few ways the long-awaited Manny trade might go down, in approximate order of likelihood:

1. Manny and Matt Clement to the Giants for P Brad Hennesey, P Jonathan Sanchez, P Billy Sadler, and 2B Kevin Frandsen

The Sox get a replacement for Mark Loretta who is known for his on-base percentage (they love that), and the Giants give up just about every pitching prospect they have in their relatively barren cupboard. This would probably spell the end of the Barry Bonds era in San Fran, although the Giants could conceivably bring Bonds back and play Manny in right.

2. Manny, Matt Clement, and Mike Lowell to the Dodgers for SP Chad Billingsley, CF Matt Kemp, and 3B Andy LaRoche

Ned Colletti loves big names and hates giving any of his hot prospects a chance, so this deal will make perfect sense in his mind. Billingsley’s spot in the rotation is on thin ice now that the Dodgers have signed Randy Wolf, super-prospect Matt Kemp is blocked for 5 years by the ridiculous contract Coletti gave to Juan Pierre, and Colletti seems dead set on never ever giving Andy LaRoche, who is perhaps the best third base prospect in the game, a chance to play on the Dodgers (e.g. signing Bill Mueller, trading for Wilson Betemit, talking about playing Nomar or Kent at third, exploring a trade for Beltre, etc.).

3. Manny to the Padres for RP Scott Linebrink, RP Jon Adkins, and SP Tim Stauffer

The Padres have room to take on Manny’s salary, and the Red Sox would make this deal in a second - for some reason Theo and Co. have been obsessed with Scott Linebrink for years.

4. Manny and Mike Lowell to the Astros for CL Brad Lidge, 3B Morgan Ensberg, and 2B Chris Burke

This would be a great trade for both teams, which is why I’m pretty sure it won’t happen. The Astros have been looking to move Lidge and Ensberg, and the Red Sox would fill holes at second base and closer.

5. Manny to the Rangers for SS Michael Young

I don’t see why the Rangers would do this, but it keeps getting mentioned. This would be a great deal for the Sox.

The cliche-ridden nature of sports writing was weighing heavy on my spirit, so I was trying to think of some new, original way to say “six-player deal.” Hexatrade? No, that sounds like some sort of Wiccan investing website. Sexaswap? Indeed, that sounds like how Coley spends his Friday nights. (Oh! snap! Meanwhile, I spend my Saturday nights reading ESPN.com, because I had work today and oh, surprise, I have work again tomorrow. Sigh. Sexaswapping will have to wait, clearly. And, in the meantime, I’ll just waste time on the Internets.) Anyways, this is all by way of saying that the Diamondbacks and the the Brewers have inked (sports cliche!) a six-player deal (sports cliche!).

From Arizona TO Milwaukee: Catcher Johnny Estrada, as well as right-handed pitchers Claudio Vargas and Greg Aquino.

From Milwaukee TO Arizona: Lefties Doug Davis and Dana Eveland, as well as outfielder Dave Krynzel.

Estrada is a decent offensive catcher (a former All-Star, 30 years old, not too much power these days) and Davis is a middle-of the-road pitcher (ERA of 4.91, and has almost exactly the same number of wins as losses over his career: 62-63 in 8 seasons, 11-11 last year) who is mostly known for pitching a lot of innings. Aquino has a strong arm but a high ERA for a reliever (4.93 in 111 appearances). Vargas was waived by the Nats two years ago, but has a winning record since then, and had a 4.92 ERA last season. Eveland, finally, will bring us out of the 4.90 range with his 6.98 ERA. Ouch—the guy is 1-4 in 36 games in the majors. And the other player in the deal, the outfielder Krynzel, hit just .188 in 21 games in the majors, .231 in the minors.

So, basically, a lot of mediocre guys are now racking up some frequent flier miles between Arizona and Milwaukee. In fact, the most interesting thing about this deal is the chilling similarity in facial hair between the two best-known players, Estrada and Davis. Behold:

Ye gods! The soul strip is spreading through MLB like mono through a freshman dorm! Is no one safe? Can we not sleep soundly in our beds at night? Will no one stop this abomination?? My fellow Americans, one must draw the line somewhere.

Just not down the middle of one’s chin. With hair.

The political name-calling game between President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and President Bush hit a low a few weeks ago when the populist Latin American figure characterized W. as “el diablo” and complained that the UN General Assembly podium still reeked of sulfur.

And in discussing U.S./ Venezuelan diplomacy, an argument can be made that baseball is a big elephant in the room. Venezuelan players seldom get asked about their country’s leader; mainly, I suppose, out of the notion that baseball is not an arena for discussing politics.

Yes, Ozzie Guillen once said he “liked” the guy, quipping about how he could then get in trouble with his family back home; but talk about Chavez and Baseball has never reached political levels.

Not yet anyway.

The Times of London is reporting – speculating, rather – that “Politics May Pitch Baseball into a Crisis.”

With a headline like that, you’re bound to get attention.

Only problem is, the background for the story is spotty at best.

George Bush and Hugo Chávez share something even deeper than their mutual loathing. Baseball is as much a religion in Venezuela as it is in the United States and the two leaders are both fanatics.

However, baseball fans in both countries fear that President Chávez may deprive the American game of one of its prime assets — the flow of rich talent from Venezuela.At stake are millions of dollars invested by some of the biggest American teams in training academies in Venezuela and the thwarted ambitions of youngsters.

Venezuelans go to the polls next month with Mr Chávez, who models himself on Fidel Castro, another baseball obsessive, in pole position to win another six-year term.

One of the greatest concerns among the middle class, who increasingly steer their sons towards baseball academies rather than academic college, is that Mr Chávez will close the domestic professional league and restrict the rights of sportsmen to play in America. Ron Rizzi, a scout for the Los Angeles Dodgers, has served the game for 39 years and has been coming to Venezuela to watch players for the past decade. He said: “Chávez is so anti-US that he may inhibit players’ ability to get there. If he wins the election they might have to come out on a boat.”

Fact: Venezuelans will vote next month. Fact: MLB Franchises have set up shop in Venezuela to train prospects. Fact: Ron Rizzi was a pitcher for Columbia University and had a 1.00 ERA before tearing his rotator cuff. Fact: Graham Dunbar writes for the Times of London.

But he’s no diplomat. And dropping a bomb like “One of the greatest concerns among the middle class… is that Mr Chávez will close the domestic professional league and restrict the rights of sportsmen to play in America” without nary a trace of attribution or proper sourcing is borderline irresponsible.

Rizzi’s speculation on what Venezuelan baseball players may have to resort to – something akin to what Cuban players go through – if Chavez wins re-election doesn’t help and is rather ignorant.

There’s more:

Venezuelan baseball has had a breakthrough year. In October 2005, Ozzie Guillén became the first of his countrymen to manage a World Series winner, leading the Chicago White Sox to the title.

Yet there is pessimism, typified by Alfredo Villasmil, a reporter with Últimas Noticias, the country’s bestselling newspaper. “Baseball is our religion. We don’t care about politics. We want to live in peace and be left alone to work.”

Well, assuming Mr. Villasmil is a Chavez critic and dissident of his policies (Venezuela is still a Democracy, you know), why would his reporting be featured in a website of the Venezuelan government?

Why would Chavez close the professional league, where many American baseball players go every winter and which provides employment for hundreds if not thousands of Venezuelans?

Not only that, the winner from the Venezuelan league gets to participate in the Serie del Caribe, which, you guessed it, is the Caribbean World Series, with teams from Mexico, Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic.

So what have we learned? Fact: politics surround baseball. Fact: the Orioles played in Cuba. Fact: Chavez looks funny with his baseball jumper.