Howard Owens

One of the most popular posts I've ever done is this one about Connie Chung.

Now I learn from Romenesko that "insiders" at CNN are unhappy with Chung, but hey, they're not going to oust her or anything. I can't help but wonder if some of those "insiders" aren't picking up on the general negative internet vibes spinning around out there about Chung. I mean, I didn't realize the depth of dislike for the CNN incarnation of Chung until I picked up on Dave Barry's little jab at her.

If CNN really had its ear to the ground, they'd chuck Chung now.

SAN DIEGO (AP) -- As an estimated 9 billion people around the world watched via streaming video on the Internet Saturday, San Diego Padres rookie center fielder Darren Baker capped off one of the most improbable first-year seasons in baseball history with three home runs, two stolen bases, 7 RBI and two spectacular defensive plays in the Padres season-ending rout of the Portland Dodgers.

Baker, son of former Cubs Hall-of-Fame manger Dusty Baker, in just one season, has become the most dominate player in baseball, and has already staked a claim as the man most likely to challenge his hero's career records.

"Darren is quite a ballplayer," Barry Bond's said in a post-game chat with AP, which was viewed by four-billion baseball fans. "He's just a natural. You could see his passion for the game when he was just three or four. You knew then he would be something special."

In a season that saw the Padres win 100 or more games for the 15th-straight year, Baker added to their fearsome lineup by hitting 70 home runs, driving in 150 runs, stealing 60 bases and staking a claim on what will certainly be the first in a long stream of golden glove awards.

"I'm happy to help the Padres win," said Baker. "This team has dominated baseball for the last 20 years, and I'm just happy to get a chance to contribute."

Russ Harper is nice to me, so I must post just one more time about the LA blogger thing ... go read his post.

Also, thanks to my buddies Ken and Emmanuelle (and Matt, indirectly) for the links ... you guys drive great traffic.

Susanna Cornett has some pertinent comments on an E&P article about "embedded" journalists -- those reporters assigned to cover the war in Iraq.

In a new initiative, reporters will, for the first time since Vietnam, be allowed to travel with the troops, cover the battle fronts, get the real story.

I think it's a good thing. And I think Suzanna is also right -- any hyper-paranoia about censorship is misplace. I've been a military man and I've been a reporter. I think I see this issue from both sides. Access is great. It's more than great. It's wonderful. But there are some things about military operations that reporters should not report.

Tom Kisken is one of the Ventura County Star's best writers and reporters. When he told me he was working on a story where he would interview a group of county residents about the war -- non-experts, nobody prominent, but still people where paying attention enough to be informed -- I thought it was a great story idea.

The story was published in the Star today and it is a good, balanced piece. I think it's useful to read what people in your community have to say, but unlike the usual "man in the street" type of story, people who actually have some clue about the issues.

Evictions are down in Ventura County, but that isn't necessarily good news.

Sitting in a Thai restaurant (Palms) in Hollywood last night, I came to a realization: Just like everybody should have at least one friend who owns a truck, everybody should know at least one Matt Welch -- that is a person who knows a particular locale so well that you're never going to get bad advice from him.

Once again, Mr. Welch found the perfect dining establishment for my wife and I. Great food and charming entertainment -- Thai's singing kareoke cowboy songs, though we didn't get to see the Thai Elvis perform. Maybe next time.

Dinner, for just me and my wife, came after the L.A. Bloggers panel arranged and hosted by Cathy Seipp at the American Film Institute. The official gathering, attended by about 200 people, maybe less, was followed by a smaller after-party at Heather Havrilesky's apartment in Los Feliz.

The blogger panel, which we arrived at 30 minutes late because of an accident on the 101, was smart, insightful and wide ranging. I started to take notes, but found my once-skilled note taking abilities have declined precipitously and the discussion was just too darn interesting not to give it my full attention. Matt Welch and Ken Layne were their usual profoundly witty selves; Eugene Volokh was, as expected, discerning and keenly judicious; Emmanuelle Richard kept reminding us not to think of blogging as purely a political activity (which it is not); Mickey Kaus was appropriately cynical; RiShawn Biddle showed a perspicacious understanding of the media; Havrilesky helped keep the whole blogging thing in perspective by reminding us how little it pays; and Luke Ford once again showed us what a charmingly off-beat fellow he is.

There was much talk about the political orientation of the blogosphere, which many people think seems to tilt right. Eugene was quick to point out that there has been no scientific study of the politics of the blogosphere and such conclusions are based on purely a subjective tiny sampling of the blog universe. Emmanualle added that there is a whole world of blogs out there that have nothing to do with politics, and are also highly entertaining.

My personal take is that the blogosphere does tilt very libertarian, but that doesn't necessarily mean conservative. The entire internet for as long as I've been on it (1995) has been strongly libertarian. The first adopters were highly independent people, which influences their politics. And the same personality types that were drawn to the net before many of their peers were also drawn to blogging sooner. You can be a lefty libertarian, which is why I say that most blogs (of both the left and the right) tilt libertarian. Generally, speaking. Though I do agree with Kaus that it would be possible, and somebody should do it, to actually scientifically study the socio-political nature of blogs.

For more on the panel, read Luke.

After the panel there was food and wine in the foyer, where I met Stewart and Russ. I also met Michael (who, at the time, I didn't realize is from my home town of San Diego). Michael, who sat in the audience with his laptop taking notes, has a good detailed post on the event. Joh3n also took notes on his laptop, but says details will follow later.

Both Joh3n and Michael were meeting Tony Pierce in person for the first time, as was I. And as Michael observes, Pierce is a totally kind, humble and interesting man. (My pictures of this meeting did not turn out, as did none of my post-AFI pictures, because I forgot to turn my flash on). Tony and I got to talk more at the Heather party, were we got deeply into a fascinating discussion of Christianity, LSD and the nature of Satan.

The after-party was the usual suspects mostly -- the people I knew were Layne, Welch, Emmanuelle, Charlie Hornberger and his wife Bonnie, Heather, Pierce, RiShawn, Kaus (whom I didn't get to talk to), Cathy, Axel ... and I'm sure I'm leaving somebody out, and a bunch of people I didn't know. There was much talk of BBQ, Mescal, North Carolina (three women in the crowd, including my wife and Heather are from NC), religion (including some interesting offshoot of Judaism that includes a belief in reincarnation), L.A. media gossip, TIVO, various TV shows and movies, Julie London vs. Peggy Lee, and the size of Heather's apartment.

Oh, and the police came by at about 2 a.m. The outside portion of the party was arguing the relative merits of some movie or other a bit too loudly.

Billie and I left at 3 a.m., and there were still a dozen people left having a grand time. None of them have updated their blogs yet today, so as far as I know, they're all still there.

UPDATE: Rand Simberg has a must-read post on the panel.

UPDATE: Steve Smith has some good observations about last night's event, as does the aforementioned Stewart, whom I should add was just so damn likeable that I'm tempted to start calling him Stew. But then I've never met a welshman I disliked.

To me, tonight's Grammy's show was about the best I've ever seen.  The must was largely decent and I didn't see any embarrassing awards (at least within the confines of who was nominated).

But the capper of the night was Elvis Costello, Bruce Springsteen, Dave Grohl and Stevie Van Zandt (backed by No Doubt's rhythm section) playing the Clash's "London Calling" in tribute to Joe Strummer.  It was the kind of powerful performance that deserves to live in legend. It was pitch perfect and worthy of one of the most important men in the history of rock and roll.  For most of my life, I couldn't have imagined a moment like that on the Grammys. Real soul, real heart has so seldom been a part of the Grammys.

Tired of war news, night club fires, missing women, collapsing roofs and botched surgeries? Here's a heart warming story, especially if you're a sports fan.

The West Warwick fire has club owners popping up all over saying that when Great White played their clubs, GW didn't get permission for its pyrotechnic display.

My question is to those owners, including the owners of the club in RI, how could you not know?  Why don't you have personnel monitoring a bands' stage set up? It's not trivial matter to put even a small pyrotechnics display on stage. It's not something a band can do in secret, if you're paying attention.

Club owners have a responsibility to ensure the safety of its patrons -- the means monitoring performers, monitoring the backstage area, keeping halls clear, emergency exits clear and working, sprinkler systems working and constant preparedness.  Is that really so hard?

Even though we know the West Warwick fire wasn't a terrorist attack, nightclubs have often been terrorist targets. In this day and age, club owners need to be especially vigilant.

What do a bunch of evil bloggers intent of dominating the world think is the best Rock Album of 2002. The top secret answer can be uncovered here.

Julie Neidlinger thinks I have a good site ... thanks ... here's her's, which is good, too.

No blogging tonight. I'm beat.  I got up early, drove to Long Beach, attended an all-day Cold Fusion seminar, drove home. In LA traffic. Yuk.

A another post on war poetry. A good one. You should read it. It's from Aaron Haspel.

Memo to news-station directors -- want me to change the channel real fast to one of your competitors? Start talking about Laci Peterson.

Joseph Duemer has actually posted something I can largely agree with, and it's about poetry and politics, even.

Politics and war are valid topics of poetry. If poets of the past were somehow prevented from covering such topics, we wouldn't have Homer to read today. Of course, there's probably been more bad poetry penned in the an effort to advance some political cause than any other subject, but that doesn't mean that a true poet can't touch the sublime nature of the human condition through mere words on paper. War, after all, is not that far removed from love. The depth of human emotion it engenders is as profound, soul stirring and revealing as any other subject a poet might touch.

I tried to find Laura Bush's exact words about the subject, and can't. But if she said politics has no place in American literature, she's wrong. She's obviously never read Twain, or Hemingway or Irving. In poetry, as has been noted, Whitman and Dickinson both touched on the political, especially so Whitman. Whitman was a man of profound political passion. So much so that he wrote one of the most famous poems about any president, a Republican president, ever written (though I'm not sure it really qualifies as an example of  great American literature).

Where I disagree with Duemer -- and I can't do a whole post agreeing with him, can I -- is in this phrase: " ... their alienation is my alienation."

I invite Mr. Duemer to counter me if I'm wrong, but I don't think so. Their alienation (I'm speaking primarily of Whitman and Dickinson, as I'm too unfamiliar with Hughes to comment) was not an alienation against political America as they knew it. Whitman would love America today as much as he loved it 150 years ago -- because we remain a vibrant land full of possibilities that gives each individual soul room to expand and celebrate itself -- Whitman's alienation had more to do with his own struggles with his homosexuality, and his general sense of not fitting in with proper society. For Dickinson, she just wasn't comfortable around people. She had no quarrel with her government, nor with the social structure of her day. What I read of Mr. Duemer to date is an alienation against the government, against our values, and with our ambitions. Those are concepts, I would argue, that Mr. Whitman and Ms. Dickerson would find strange and hard to fathom. I'm not trying to speak for the dead, merely offer a counter viewpoint.

Happy Blogversery to Scott Riley.

There's been a bit of a big deal being made about this Zurich group Online Media white paper in circulation. I can't afford to buy the damn thing, but Steve Outing gives a run down of what's in it, and I find myself disagreeing with a good part of his synopsis.

First off, I think much of what the report seems to address is the "online industry" from a large-publication, big media point of view. My personal prejudice is that the large-pub perspective is warped and too reliant on old-media thinking. Where the real strides in new revenue models are going to be made is in papers of the 100,000 circ range (of course, my bias is that I work for such a paper, and I think we're doing good stuff).

Some of Outing's take, and mine:

* A business model will emerge for online news operations that works, and makes money.

Well, yeah. Of course.

* The industry will fairly quickly begin to tap its revenue potential. (Sites are current tapping only 20%-30% of their revenue opportunities, the group estimated.)

I'd call 20 to 30 percent conservative. Try five or 10 percent.

* Media-company top management ranks will see a swift change, with traditionalists replaced by executives who understand how the Internet fits into the big picture.

Not at E.W. Scripps, not at the Ventura County Star, but that's another story.

* Advertising will remain the dominant online revenue source, with paid content supplementary.

Bullshit. Not if you want to survive. Advertising is a nice piece of supplemental income, but it ain't the whole pie. Frankly, I'm surprised Outing is giving a tacit node toward this particular line of BS, because he's the one who introduced me to (circa 1996) the concept of "multiple revenue streams." Of course, I'm taking this to mean, "banner advertising," or "rich media advertising" or any other advertising that attempts to be sort of an online-only equivalent of display ads. The advertising that will make money now and in the future is that advertising that leverages the print/online synergy, such as "Featured Ads"-type applications.

There's bigger opportunities elsewhere.

Next Outing discusses the debate over paid content. Here's my advice: Premium content.

It will be a while before the average newspaper, i.e., not the type of newspaper tacitly discussed in this report, can make good money from paid content. To make money off of paid content, you need to offer something unique. Of course, something unique that every average newspaper has is "local news." Unfortunately, the readers haven't reached the point yet where they see significant value in local news. And maybe they never will.

...in the area of content, the group felt strongly that there is a need for news sites to create more unique content and use less content repurposed from other media platforms within a company. Current online-news content, according to the group: is too general and aimed at a mass audience; lacks entertainment value; is too often redundant to what's published in print or broadcast; and lacks quality and credibility.

I don't understand how repurposing newspaper content from an established and reputable publisher can lack credibility, but that aside, I'm no longer convinced that anything other than repurposed content is really necessary. The repurposed content seems to be driving traffic just fine, and as long as that continues, publishers will see little need to invest heavily in online-only content.

It helps, of course, if that repurposed content is supplemented in some manner, but I can't see writing "web only" stories. Why go to that expense to come up with original content and then not allow the print side to use it? If it's really newsworthy, if it's quality, it should run in the print edition. If it's not good enough to run in print, it certainly shouldn't be published in the paper.

What online can uniquely provide, however, is interactive content. Also, user-generated content. More news sites should be publishing blogs (kill the discussion forum apps in favor of blogs). With the proliferation of digital cameras, turn your readers into staff photographers and reporters. Provide a means on online news sites to bring user-generated content to live. Make news sites more like communities than newspapers. This is what will increase page views and brand loyalty.

The future of online newspapers lies not in thinking like Old Media blowhards; it lies in investing in new business models. The future is involved leveraging the revenue-related things newspapers do well (classifieds, for example), and coming up with better ways to leverage e-commerce opportunities (such as advertiser-driven auctions). Based on Outing's take on the Zurich group's finding, I'm not convinced the "industry leaders" get it.

No, Dave, your note taking is quite good.

I just watched Connie Chung interview two "American Idol" contestants. I may have some of this wrong -- I'm a slow note-taker -- but, as I heard them, here are some of the tough, hardball questions Connie fired off:

Q. Both of you are so good!

Q. I saw your mother hug you! It was so sweet!

Q. If you win, do you think you'll still be a nice person?

Q. Good luck to both of you! I'll be watching!

Here are the actual questions, taken from the official rush transcript off the CNN site. I am not making this up.

CHUNG: Both of you are so good. I can't believe it. Really, you are. And I can't believe that you don't have any formal training, neither of you.

CHUNG: It's incredible. And you're both in your 20s. And you just sang it so easily. Honestly.

CHUNG: Charles, were you surprised that you made the cut? There were 26 million people watching. And they voted for you.

CHUNG: You're kidding?

CHUNG: You've been running around being stars, right?

CHUNG: You know what? I saw your mother crying. It was so sweet.

CHUNG: Now, if you become a big star, do you think you're still going to be a nice person?

CHUNG: Good luck to both of you.

Connie Chung -- committing journalism without a license since 1969.

Oh, this is bad news.

"We're hoping to avoid opening up the shoulder," Towers said. "But if he ended up having surgery, he could be out longer than two months . . . maybe most of the year. It just hasn't gotten better."

And who will replace Trevor? The pickings are slim, but not without hope:

Having passed on former Braves closer John Rocker, the Padres are scouting right-hander Hippolito Pichardo, formerly of the Royals and Astros and now a free agent pitching in the Caribbean World Series. Pichardo would be a long shot to get save chances with the Padres. More likely, he'd build depth behind the team's current setup men, a group that includes Jay Witasick (who was signed over Dave Veres, the former Cardinals closer), Brandon Villafuerte, Luther Hackman, Clay Condrey and left-hander Kevin Walker.

Towers, no stranger to sugary projections, is touting power right-hander Jaret Wright, a former starter for the Indians, as another candidate.

"We're hoping that maybe we've got an Eric Gagne in the making – hoping," Towers said, referring to the Dodgers' former starter who was the National League's top closer in 2002.

I kind of like the Jeret Wright option. He throws hard and hasn't had much success holding a lead as a starter -- the profile of most eventual great closers, from Goose Gossage to Eric Gagne.

Lisa Marie Presley has decided to become a pop singer. One wonders what took her so long. One would be tempted to think that she didn't give it a try because she couldn't sing. That, apparently, is not the case. To bad the song is so lame and formulaic. But would any record label these days give her a chance to be anything but lame and formulaic? But she can sing. Unless it's all studio trickery, which is possible.

My final installment ... picks for the central divisions of the AL and NL.

AL Central first.

1. Chicago White Sox: In a division that is probably the weakest in baseball, and 85-win season could spell first place. The ChiSox don't have much going for them beyond Bartolo Colon, Mark Buehrle and Magglio Ordonez, but they won 81 games last year without Colon and in an unbalanced-schedule world, the AL Central is really where you want to play most of your games if you have any level of talent at all.
2. Minnesota Twins: The Twins did better than expected last year, but that doesn't mean they'll keep it up this year. I'm not totally writing them off as potential contenders, but I'm sure sure they have the depth of talent necessary to repeat a division crown.
3. Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City : Somebody has to finish last in this division, and it's a toss up as to which of the "Moe, Larry, and Curly" of the baseball world take the unHonors. I don't care enough to even venture a guess. One sure bet -- one of these three teams will wind up with the worst record in baseball.

And now for the NL Central, or the polar opposite of the AL Central.

1. St. Louis Cardinals : The Cards must have really liked Woody Williams. They've suddenly developed a fondness for ex-Padres pitchers. They've added to their roster Joey Hamilton, Dustin Hermanson and Brett Tomko. But I'm not holding that against them, especially since the grand-dad of ex-Padres pitchers putting on Cardinal red, Andy Benes, has retired, finally. Still, the Cards field a potent offense and a stellar pitching staff (Tomko should make a significant contribution). As much as I would rather see the Reds or the Astros take the divisin crown, the Cards look unstoppable.
2. Cincinnati Reds: Good pitching is supposed to beat good hitting, so I should probably be picking Houston number 2, but pitching is far more unpredictable than hitting, and Houston's pitchers are mighty young (if they were old, like Arizona, I'd hold that against them, too). I just love the offense the Reds and throw at you: Austin Kearns, Ken Griffey Jr., Sean Casey, Adam Dunn, Randell Simon and Aaron Boone (though I'm not clear yet on how both Casey and Simon are going to fit into the lineup). These guys should be able to put some runs on the board.
3. Chicago Cubs: The safe pick is the Cubs in second or third. The betting man would pick them to win the NL crown. With Dusty Baker at the helm, a still potent Sammy Sosa at the bat, along with the likes of Moises Alou, Corey Patterson, Hee Seop Choi, Mark Prior, Kerry Wood, Jon Lieber and Jesus Sanchez on the roster, the Cubs have a chance to do some real damage. Certainly, this team is trending upwards. It's the most hopeful roster the Cubs have had in my lifetime. If the Cubs were in the NL West or AL Central, I would be picking them for first.
4. Houston Astros : If their pitching holds up, they challenge for first. The Astros have a heck of an offense in a hitters park, but a hitters park is not good for young pitching, and 2002 not withstanding, that's a lot of strain on young arms. I'm just not going to be the farm on young pitchers who are asked to pitch half their games in a hitters ballpark. If I'm wrong, the Astros could win 90 to 100 games. If my skepticism is on target, then 80 to 90 loses is not out of the question.
5. Milwaukee Brewers: Can the Brewers even be adequately described as a "rebuilding team." Memo to Selig: Can you say, "contraction."

I read Romenesko far more than I read Sullivan, but I still hadn't picked up on Romenesko's left-liberal bias until Sullivan pointed it out ... now that you mention it ...

More evidence that I'll never own a house in Ventura County.

Here's my picks for the NL East, followed by my picks for the AL East.

1. Atlanta Braves: The best team in the NL East only got better during the off-season. Robert Fick, Mike Hampton, Russ Ortiz, Johnny Estrada make up for the loss of Kevin Millwood and Tom Glavine. The Braves are solid through and through and have proven they can win with this level of talent (not true, say, of the Mets).
2. Florida Marlins: I'm going out on a limb here ... if Pudge can really help, if the young pitching holds up, if Kevin Millar does indeed return, if Todd Hollandsworth lives up to his promise, if the loss of Preston Wilson doesn't hurt too much (and how can it, given how much he strikes out) ... Florida has a pretty solid team. And the other teams in the division tend to be overrated.
3. New York Mets : I like the additions of Mike Stanton, Cliff Floyd, Rey Sanchez and Tsuyoshi Shinjo, and any team with Mike Pizza and Roberto Alamar needs to be taken seriously -- but ... these guys just don't seem like winners to me. I want to see them prove it before I have any confidence in them, but Art Howe just might be the guy to instill a little positive thinking in this group of under-achievers.
4. Philedelphia Phillies: The most over-hyped, over-rated team going into spring training. Jim Thome will tank. David Bell is worthless. Doug Glanville was too much of a spark plug to let go. The only decent off-season move was picking up Kevin Millwood, but without the Braves-type offense behind him, will he be as effective?
5. Montreal Expos: I know these guys are media darlings, and we all want to see them succeed, but I'll be surprised if the team as we know it now is in tact by the All-Star break. If they are, even second place and a wild card isn't out of the question, but I don't see it happening.

AL East:

1. New York Yankees: The Yankees will win the AL East, win the AL Championshp and win the World Series. The Onion, of course, has the scoop.
2. Boston Red Sox: The best the Red Sox can hope for is a wild card, and with the competitive set up of the AL West, that's no sure bet. I like the pick up of Todd Walker, but the loss of Ugueth Urbina hurts. There were no other major player moves during that off-season. That isn't enough to compete with the Yankees.
3. Toronto Blue Jays: The most interesting question in the AL East this season is who will finish third. It's either the BJs or Baltimore, and even though we know in baseball it's hard to repeat, I'm going with the BJs for 2003.
4. Baltimore Orioles: See Blue Jays, Toronto, above.
5. Tampa Bay Devil Rays : Lou Piniella has never lost more than six games in a row. That will change this year. Still, the D-Rays have some good young players. They have a chance to lose fewer than 100 games.

Pitchers and catchers report soon.

Here's the first in what I plan (time permitting) to be a series of pre-spring training predictions for the 2003 baseball season.

First, the National League West.

1. The Los Angeles Dodgers: One of the best trades the Dodgers have made in a while, I think, is picking up Daryl Ward from the Astros. This kid just needs a chance to play everyday. He's a real slugger and should provide good protection for Shawn Green. Fred McGriff is a big improvement over Eric Karros at first. The Dodgers starting pitching is still impressive and their middle relief should be solid. The two big questions -- can Eric Gagne repeat his performance from last year, or did Jim Tracy overuse him and wear out his arm? And, is Dave Roberts for real, or was last year a fluke. If Gagne and Roberts come through, the Dodgers might get past their under-achieving skid of the last decade or so.
2. San Francisco Giants: The loss of Russ Ortiz and Jeff Kent hurt the Giants, but the biggest cut of all was losing Dusty Baker. As much as I like Felipe Alou, he's no Dusty Baker. Baker has always gotten more out of the Giants than the talent around him would seem to make possible. Key acquisitions, such as Ray Durham and Edgardo Alfonzo help, but I'm not convinced it's enough. Barry Bonds is at the age where we can expect to see his numbers decline. Still, there's a lot of talent there and the Giants will be tough to beat.
3. Arizona Diamondbacks: When you think Arizona, you think Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling. These two guys are amazing. They are among the greatest 1-2 combinations in baseball history (think Spawn and Sane, Drysdale and Koufax). But if either one gets injured -- at their age, not out of the question -- then the Diamondbacks are sunk. They're an old team, getting older each year. I'm just waiting for the collapse. I also think Junior Spivey last year was a fluke. He never produced at that as a minor leauger, so there's no reason to believe he will continue at that level as a major leauger. Juan Gonzalez can't carry this team.
4. San Diego Padres: The only reason I'm not picking my Padres to finish last is they're in the same division as Colorado. The only reason I'm not picking my Padres to finish third is Trevor Hoffman won't be the closer to start the season, maybe not for the entire season, maybe not ever again. The Padres have a good young pitching staff. They have the nucleus of a good offense in Phil Nevin, Ryan Klesko, Mark Kotsay and Sean Burroughs. I like the addition of Mark Lorretta and I'm confident Ramon Vazquez is the man for short stop. I'm worried about catcher and right field. The last couple of years, injuries more than anything have killed the Padres. I'm concerned that there is a deeper problem here (like the trainers) and that this year will be no different, but if the Padres stay healthy, they will be a competitive team. But it's a tough division.
5. Colorado Rockies: The Rockies have no pitching. And they'll never have any pitching so long as they play in Denver. Maybe. Jason Jennings was 16 - 8 last year with a 4.52 ERA, which isn't bad for a Rockies pitcher. It was, of course, inflated by his home ERA (well over 5), but unlike, say, Mike Hampton, getting knocked around at Coors did not shake Jennings confidence and he pitched well on the road. If Jennings isn't a fluke, and the Rockies can clone him, the team might actually have a shot at a pennant some day.

Next: The American League West.

UPDATE: fwiw: I'm not wedded to this whole Dodgers finish first thing. I think they have the most balanced roster at this point, but their starting pitching is full of question marks. Read the comments -- Matt Welch has more confidence in the Padres than I do ... let's hope he's right. Dimn Andrew even has more confidence in the Padres than I do. Hell, when I liberal supports my team more eagerly than I do, you've got to believe it's a topsy turvey world these days.

Here's my picks for the American League West.

1. Anaheim Angels: The most unchanged team in the division. Normally, this would be a worry, but given the relative youth of the team, and it's can-do attitude, I'm favoring the Angels at this point. However, traditionally, teams that win it all, have a hard time repeating, especially teams that were, possibly, over achievers. It's a hard emotional road to win it all when you are supposed to be medicore at best. Still, the Angels have solid pitching and an offense that knows how to score runs and pressure the other team. It's hard not to favor the Angels.
2. Oakland Athletics: Key off-season loses are Jeff Tam, Ray Durham, Cory Lidle and Billy Koch. But, Tam is only a middle reliever (though a good one), Lidle is at best a number 4 starter, even on a team without the 1-2-3 rotation of the A's and Durham was kind of a rent-a-player anyway. Losing Koch hurts. It's unclear who will be the A's closer at this point, which is why I'm not picking the A's to repeat their 100-win season and take the West crown. Though you gotta love the pick up of Erubiel Durazo for the D'Backs. What was Arizona thinking?
3. Seattle Mariners: Any team that thinks Dan Wilson should be the starting catcher ahead of Ben Davis has a screw loose. Besides, this team is essentially unchanged from last year, and outside of some pretty good pitching, it ain't that great of a team.
4. Texas Rangers: Pudge is gone. So after Alex Rodriguez, what is there left? Decent off-season pick ups in Doug Glanville, Ugueth Urbina, Esteban Yan (maybe), Ismael Valdes (maybe), but it's not enough to make up for the loss of Pudge. This team sucked last year. It will suck this year. And probably next year, too. Hopeless isn't the right term to describe the state of the Rangers. Until they can rid themselves of A-Rod's salary, they will be predictable cellar dwellers.

Next, the National League East.

I think I've posted some good stuff today ... read on ... scroll down ... if you agree, dear regular reader ... link to your favorite post ... tell your friends ... traffic's dropped off the last couple of days ... I could use some links.

Tony Gwynn got his first win as a college baseball coach, and I was there to see it. In Santa Barbara yesterday, Gwynn's Aztecs (1-4) beat the UCSB Gouchos 10-2 behind the suburb pitching of Joe Carque.

It was the kind of win you might expect a Gwynn team to engineer -- lots of singles, lots of hits to the opposite field.

Gwynn's son, Anthony, failed to collect a hit, but did reach base when he was hit by a pitch.

Of course, now that I have a digital camera, I took lots of pictures. You can find a slideshow here.