http://www.latimes.com/sports/baseball/mlb/angels/la-sp-angels3dec03,1,5544411.story?track=rss&c track=1&cset=true

"Tejada, 32, would cost less in talent, but the Orioles are believed to be seeking pitcher Jered Weaver and Brandon Wood, and Moreno seems very reluctant to trade Wood, a power-hitter prospect who could be the Angels' shortstop in 2009. The Angels would prefer to trade Santana or Saunders and a lesser prospect."

Sounds sort of ridiculous to me. Thoughts?

Dear Tony Gwynn,

First of all, I will forever rememeber you as the guy in the Sega Genesis game Sports Talk Baseball who would always manage to hit the ball easily into right field, but still manage to get thrown out at first base. And really, that just makes your career .338 average all the more impressive. Thus, I do not deny your hitting ability. What I am denying, however, is your ability to be a baseball analyst.

I saw your little MLB Playoff "breakdowns" on sports.yahoo.com. I noticed how, in the Divison Series, you predicted the Yankees over the Tigers, the Twins over the A's (I don't blame you for this one), the Mets over the Dodgers, and the Padres over the Cardinals. You got ONE of these predictions right (the Mets beating the Dodgers). Even with that one correct prediction, I'm not too sure about your skills...I mean, you said that the "Dodgers will make series close," but last time I checked, getting swept and getting outscored 19-11 isn't too "close." So far, your percentage was an excellent 25%.

But then I gave you another chance in the League Championship Series. You picked the A's over the Tigers, even though you gave more checkmarks to the Tigers. You say that the Tigers have a better offense, better bullpen and better manager, but somehow the A's "better defense and 'intangibles'" mean more? Regardless, you said A's in 7, when it was Tigers in 4.

On the other side, you said Mets over Cards, and AGAIN, you gave more checkmarks to the Cardinals. My question to you, Tony, is, what in the world is the point of the checkmarks if they don't mean anything?! You say, "New York is too strong offensively and can beat you too many ways." Seeing as how you said the Mets only had the advantage in Offense and Defense, I think you meant "two ways," not "too many ways." I do have to admit, the Mets must have an awesome defense, I mean, as you say, "the Mets have many defensive weapons." Defensive weapons. Oh, I see now, the Mets have offense, defense, and oxymorons on their side. And yet, they still managed to lose. Your overall percentage was now a dismal 16.7%.

And then, the World Series. I eagerly awaited your analysis and was sorely disappointed when I saw you had picked the Tigers. For you see, I wanted the Tigers to win. I sent links to all my friends about your bad streak, telling them how scared I was that your pick would jinx the Tigers. I did this in hopes that I would ironically jinx your ability to jinx the Tigers and thus, get my wish of the Tigers winning the world series to come true. Do you see what you've done, Tony? I used to make sense! Anyway, for some ABSURD reason, you picked the Tigers even though, AGAIN, the Cardinals had more checkmarks! WHY BOTHER WITH THE CHECKMARKS?!?!

The thing that gets me about you, Tony, is that I see a trend in all your picks. I'm on to your "system." EACH and EVERY pick you made was the team with home-field advantage. You are no baseball expert. You're like Miss Cleo: you can't make accurate predictions and you're a FRAUD.

However, take pride in your overall correct prediction percentage of 14.29%. Basically, you're probably the only person in the world who has a better chance of getting a basehit than getting a 50/50 choice right.

On the Athletics Nation homepage, it says "The A's are going to the ALCS and as one very astute poster pointed out, you can't spell ALCS without A-T-H-L-E-T-I-C-S."

Yes you can. ALCS. Look! I did it! And I didn't use the T, the H, the E, the other T, or the I.

I think he may have meant "You can't spell A-T-H-L-E-T-I-C-S without A-L-C-S," but that doesn't really make sense. I mean, by that logic, you also can't spell A-T-H-L-E-T-I-C-S without S-H-I-T.