The basic story is as follows:

1. Braden will start Opening Night. he is being placed on a schedule which puts him there-- Eveland is way off that schedule;

2. Duke might be ready by end of first week, meaning there could be only 1 spot available;

3. That spot will go to Cahill or Anderson. Edgar is Gone; no discussion  of Outman.

4. Which means if Duke is not ready-- suffers a setback, for example-- we'll probably see both of the kids in the rotation.

I wish there were more depth-- in terms of more guys doing better than they are-- but this is the outcome I expected several weeks ago. So let's leave all the service time and overwork debate to the side for a while, and hope the kids are all right.

Lots of deveopments in the past few days.

Jerome Williams and James Simmons were sent down-- Simmons had to make an emergency appearance today when Anderson got hurt (more in a sec on that) and got lit up, though one would tend to give him a break since it was obviously a rushed, unanticipated appearance.

The best overall performance this spring has been turned in by Trevor Cahill, Brett Anderson and Josh Outman. Dana Eveland has been uneven-- got lit up in a minor league game this week. Sean Gallagher had a poor beginning, and one horrid game while suffering from the flu, but then pitched very well his last time out. Gio Gonzalez is throwing well, Edgar is not. Dallas Braden is fine. Cahill had a shaky inning his last time out; Mazzaro was shaky the entire appearance. And now Anderson-- who has obviously exceeded his 150 inning limit (sorry, PT-- couldn't resist-- said in fun, OK??)-- has a strain or soreness in his forearm and was cut short after 2 innings today.

What does it all mean???

1) If Anderson has any lingering injury question, shut him down or dispatch him to AAA and be patient. I have been a big booster of his-- I think he's best able of MAC to make a difference now, but obviously they can't risk him. If this is a less siginficant situation, I would think he could still get two more starts in and have a shot at the rotation. But it seems doubtful to me now;

2) Mazzaro's shakiness and the sense that he hasn't yet got command of all his pitches tells me that AAA awaits. He is the classic power pitcher that needs some fine tuning-- yes, he's the oldest of the bunch, but no sense throwing him at patient major league hitters if command issues linger. He could, of course, have two brilliant appearances between now and the end of ST and change this view, but I tend to think not;

3) Braden and Eveland are in the rotation unless they are part of a trade. I'd favor Braden as Opening Day starter over Eveland, who I think will, whatever the actual opening rotation, wind up as the #4 or #5 starter eventually, assuming he stays with the club;

4) I think Gio deserves a shot-- and I think Edgar does not;

5) Gallagher appears recovered-- and he's also an outside contender for the opener;

6) I think Cahill is the final peg assuming that one bad inning isn't repeated the next two times. He's been very solid all spring, and the reviews suggest that he has the makeup necessary to succeed from the get-go.

7) I like Outman in the bullpen. If Anderson's injury lingers, and Cahill flames out the next couple of times, he could still be there-- but I think in his case, there's not enough of a track record beyond this spring to go on. His numbers from the Philly organization against AA hitters are OK, but not great; his K/W ratios are OK, but not great.

So to review-- if Anderson is OK, I still think both he and Cahill may be in-- then setting up a possible Gio vs. Eveland or Braden situation. If Anderson is not OK, I think it's probably Cahill and Gio joining the three other holdovers.

Over on hardballtimes.com today-- based on actual GameDay reporting from 2008. I'll leave it to others to judge its merits-- these attempts to quantify fielding skill are all crapshoots, but here are the most pertinent results. Data is based on per 150 chances.

1B Berkman led-- Daric Barton 5th. We are clearly losing something defensively with Giambi or whomever instead of Barton;

2B Kennedy led-- Ellis 4th.

SS Aviles led-- Cabrera 15th, Crosby not so far behind at 19th. The move was made out of frustration at Crosby's bat.

3B Rolen led-- Hannahan 5th!! That was a surprise to me, and may speak volumes about who the final backup infielder will be

LF-- Jay Payton (!) led-- Holliday 11th, Cust dead last at 34th

CF-- Jody Gerut led-- no A's qualified  Kotsay 29th-- how the mighty have fallen

RF-- Gutierrez led (great sleeper fantasy pick, by the way) Sweeney was 10th.

If Hannahan is this good, then I don't see why we'd keep Crosby around, given Cabrera's durability. And we have to have Cust DH as much as possible, which does sacrifice defense at 1B.  It's either 1B or RF-- pick your poison. Barton could still make the team if they decide to go with just 4OFers and 6 relievers. But it seems doubtful.

It's spring!! well, technically not quite, but for the A's young OFers, it sure is. Davis is hitting; Sweeney is hitting; Cunningham is hitting; Denorfia went 4-4 at the WBC yesterday.

What to do? what to do?

Crosby/Nomar or, if Chavy is shut down, Crosby/Pennington/Nomar or Crosby/Hannahan/Nomar will fill out our infield. Barton could still perform well enough this spring to make the squad or they might keep an extra middle infielder given the Ellis injury situation and, if either are true, we're only talking 4 OFs with Cust and Holliday being two unless the A's opt to go with only 11 pitchers.

Buck seems firmly in place.

Cunningham seems like he's bound for AAA.

Sweeney appears to be the starting CFer.

Davis or Donorfia? Or neither?? Or keep them both and either dispatch Barton or go with 11 pitchers? The 11 pitcher option seems sketchy given the youth of our rotation and the paucity of April off days.

And given that Holliday may or may not be here all year, which other OFer would then replace him? Cust, should Giambi be hitting and Barton too? Or Donorfia? Or even Cunningham? Do you want that player riding the pine in Oakland or playing every day at Raley Field??

The thing about Davis is defense. The thing about Denorfia is that he might wind up being a much better all-around player than Davis or even challenge Sweeney for the CF job. neither of them-- nor Cunningham-- nor perhaps Buck-- really has corner OF power.

But Barton or Denorfia-- if packaged with a pitcher-- might yield a pair of pretty good prospects. Is Barton really a secure long-term option for this team anymore given the looming presence of Carter and Doolittle? Do the A's need him to show his ability at the major league level to give him proper trade value? And who else will play 1B this year should Giambi get hurt? Nomar is a spot player not a starter.

And the other way to do this is simply play them all-- either here or in Sactown-- and await the inevitable injuries. But the truth is that the A's have excess starting pitching and excess OFers who can play at the major league level. That is a good problem to have and it gives our GM a lot of fleixibility.

This is a straight quote from Slusser today-- one can only speculate as to this person's identity, but one would have to assume his initials would either be BB, DF or BG. And the odds would seem to favor either of the first two. She goes on to say that the A's have tradiionally waited until midseason to bring top prospects to the bigs to delay the clock on arbitration, but that it doesn't "seem to be the case" this year.

There is a difference of opinion in these parts over these kids. Some think they're all that, but should be held back in AA or AAA for seasoning or for the aforementioned clock. Others-- or at least one other-- thinks there is no evidence that any of them would be superior to all the other candidates for now, given Duke's likely inability to make Opening Day, the #4 and #5 spots in the rotation. Still others prefer that the team get a veteran starter instead of promoting any of MAC so as not to squander a potentially playoff season given the improvement among the position players.

We've all guessed right or wrong on these matters. One of the above views might wind up being the most accurate or what the team ultimately decides to do. But certainly you must admit that the MAC question is fast becoming the most interesting spring training topic for this team. I have felt from the get-go that the A's brass would take a hard look at these three, and that it was a distinct possibility that one of them could emerge from ST in the rotation and that at least one other would not be far behind as the regular season progressed. Unless one believes SuSLu us making this stuff up out of whole cloth-- inclduing yesterday's Duke to bullpen speculation-- this view is becoming sharper in the A's management's collective mind.  (Which may simply be BB's mind, but that's a different story) Of course Cahill and Mazzaro could have setbacks in the next couple of weeks, as could Anderson-- and none of them will begin the season in Oakland. But I stand by what I said a while back-- discounting the 16 yr old phenom, these are the best arms in the entire organization. I do not believe that the likes of Outman, Williams, or either Gonzalez can hold them back for long. It would not surprise me if both Cahill and Mazzaro make this rotation in 3 weeks time.

According to SuSlu, the A's are thinking hard about it, though Duke is resisting, for obvious reasons. They apparently believe the strain on the arm will be much less in a relief role.

If so, then we had better start contemplating what rotation alignment gives the team the best chance at success this year while still setting up what should be an even better 2010 and beyond. I think Eveland's experience mandates that he be in the mix; Gallagher's potential as well; and Braden's quirky stuff could serve to throw a team off in the midst of harder throwers.

But the next two spots could be crucial-- Slusser also reports scouts raving about both Cahill and Mazzaro this spring. I just don't see Outman and Williams as difference-makers, unless you are talking a negative difference. and the same for Edgar Gonzalez.

I think Gio and whichever of MAC appears most ready-- let's say Cahill or Mazzaro-- will fill out the last two spots-- with the next one of MAC ready to come in during the season as injury and performance warrants. You simply don't let talent like this waste-- particularly if they, not the others, give you the best chance of winning a la Hudson in 1999, Zito in 2000. I really believe we'll see two of the kids as crucial parts of this rotation by midseason.

Among the many outgrowths of baseball's sorry last 15 years or so is the notion that how can we punish all these PED users when, after all, the original home run chase, along with Cal Ripken's Gehrig pursuit, between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa in the summer of 1998 "saved the game", still reeling from the effects of the strike/work stoppage of 1994-95.

It is undeniably true that the a) the McGwire-Sosa chase for 61 helped rekindle interest in the game and boost attendance and that b) the subsequent emphasis on power hitting and home runs ("Chicks dig the longball", said Glavine to Maddux, or was it the other way around?) helped strengthen the sport's shaky financial base. Everybody got rich-- the players, the networks, the teams, etc..  And it is also undeniably true that Bud Selig and Co. conveniently looked the other way as to the cause of -- and perhaps aided and abetted-- the power surge by tinkering with the baseball itself-- in their thirst for the additional revenue that the longball was helping them gain.

But at what cost? Selig today described himself as "heartbroken" by the ARod admission of guilt. He knows better than anyone that his tenure as Commissioner will be defined by this issue way above all others. The Hall of Fame-- Cooperstown, the game's most iconic venue; in many ways its heart and soul-- is teetering on the edge of irrelevance as one great player after another is found to be complicit in PED use and thus faces perhaps a lifetime of snubbery from the BBWAA. Nearly every great player of the past two decades is now tarnished-- fairly or unfairly-- with the steroid brush. McGwire is in exile... Sosa hasn't been heard from in years... Clemens and Bonds may be lucky to avert jail... Miguel Tejada, for God's sake, may yet go to jail.  The game's records-- one of the most hallowed and vital links to its storied past-- have been rendered almost meaningless, freak show numbers that will mock the more normal attempts to best them for years to come.

Baseball and its stars have become akin to Michael Johnson, Ben Johnson, Flo Jo, Marion Jones and, yes, Lance Armstrong. Great atheletes all that could not resist the urge to cheat--as so many if not most of their peers also did. Those sports have been crippled by scandal, becoming recurring jokes with each new Olympics (no, I don't believe Bolt was clean. How could he be and run that impossibly fast?) or Tour De France. The next time a ballplayer hits 60 home runs-- and there will be a next time-- will we applaud or will we assume that he has simply figured out a way to beat the tests?

And as the economy staggers, and attendance dips, and the drip..drip..drip of steroid speculation or fact continues, who or what will save the sport the next time? It ain't gonna be the long ball, that's for sure.  Big money contracts are shrinking... postseason ratings dwindle... cynicism growing. There are those-- including many on this space, who shrug their shoulders, either because they have grown unable to distinguish right from wrong or because they simply don't believe that "getting an edge", through whatever means, is wrong. Fine. But I leave you with the words of a NFL player-- a sport that almost cruelly to its horsehide cousin seems to thrive in the face of its players' transgressions-- who resisted steroids, Marcellus Wiley (If we can believe him, of course): (I paraphrase from earlier this morning on ESPN) "I got hurt and then saw other players with similar injuries keep playing for 5, 10 more years. I sit in my TV chair and wonder if I had only injected would I still be playing? And I get angry. Not that I would do it any differently, but they (the cheaters) make me mad."

As they should. "Saved the Game"? Remember Vietnam? And the philosophy that stated that in order to save a village we had to destroy it? McGwire and Sosa weren't the first, unfortunately. But the wreckage is huge.. and growing.

OK-- let's assume an even distribution of the 104 positive tests-- that's 3.47 per each MLB 40 man roster. Of course the A's would be one of the leading candidates for being disproportionately high on that list, given BALCO, McGwire, Canseco, Giambi and their shared legacy. And if I'm anywhere near right about the testing missing an equal number, the actual number would be more like 7-8.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Adam Piatt fess up already? There's 1.

Tejada

Menechino  (I would be very surprised if neither he nor Miggy weren't juicing back then)

Other leading candidates among hitters: Chavez, Hernandez, Durazo, Guillen (who didn't start with the club)

Other potential pitching candidates-- and this becomes a guessing game of the highest sort:

Mulder (given all the injuries)

Harang

Mecir (older reliever trying to preserve career)

Rincon (ditto)

Now if you truly believe that the vast majority of players were juicing then, well you can add Chris Singleton (just joking, I think), Scott Hatteberg (the juicin' machine??), Mark Ellis, Eric Byrnes (and come to think of it, I'd say Byrnsie is probably a pretty strong suspect), Jermaine Dye, Ted Lilly, Tim Hudson and a few more relievers. Zito is one of the only people I'd remove from suspicion, and I'm probably wrong about him.

But none of the dozen or so guys I listed first (including Byrnes and Dye) would surprise me very much. Not saying all of them were juicing, but I'd bet most were.

Lost in the immediate reaction to the news of ARod's apparent positive steroid tests (see-- everyone did it. How we can ever tell; and how did this get out when it was supposed to be a study that guaranteed anonymity-- a legit issue but one suspects that the source of the leak might not be where people think) is a very simple but ultimately damning aspect of this study.

They tested everyone-- 1200-- so apparently everyone on the 40 man rosters of all 30 big league clubs. At a time when all the key actors save Mark McGwire who had just retired were still around. Before the Congressional hearings and before the new penalties-- which was why the study was done in the first place, to determine some baseline figures concerning PED use to assist MLB in developing a new policy.

And when they tested everyone, how many tested positive? 104, or fewer than 9%. Let's assume that they missed some-- I don't know how good this testing is, but assume that HGH or some other designer drugs escaped detection. Or some players got lucky as to their regimen and the timing of the test. Maybe an equal number -- which seems high-- of users were not detected as actually tested positive. If so, then 82% of the sample still did not test positive and were almost certainly not using. Even if those numbers were disporpotionately high among that part of the 40 man roster which was not yet on the big club, that would still leave about 75% of the big leaguers who were clean.

So if 75-80%-- and maybe a lot more-- were not using-- unless one believes that steroid use was already on the wane and, given the fairly lax penalty process in place back then, why would it have been, then the truth is that not only wasn't "everyone doing it", but the vast majority of big league players, for whatever reason, weren't doing it.

And yet we have the detritus of the following players either confirmed or heavily suspected to be PED users:

1) the greatest HR hitter of the time

2) the 2nd greatest HR hitter of the time

3) the 3rd greatest HR hitter of the time

4) the best all-around player destined to surpass the HR counts of all of the above

5) the greatest pitcher of the time

6) the greatest catcher of the time (who quite suspiciously one spring training showed up 25 lbs lighter and with an entirely different physique

7) The man with the highest combination of hits and HRS in the time

8) The best hitter from AS Break 1999 through 2001

If you told me that 1/10, or even 1/5th, of a given universe took a special supplement, and that the vast majority of the game's records or highest performances came from those players, how could I conclude anything but that the "supplement" had a signficant effect.? And that if that supplement was either illegal in society in general or within the sport, or at the least frowned upon by the sport's powers-that-be, you would also conclude that some of the game's biggest "stars" had gained a lot of their success by unfair means. That the cheaters were winning.

And in the face of all that we're supposed to throw our hands up, admit them all to the HOF, and say who are we to judge? When they were  doing something that most of their peers would not do-- for whatver reason-- and, as a result, were breaking records, achieving incredible marks, and earning a lot more money?

I say stay vigilant and if that means that in the end none of these criminals-- for that's what they are in either societal or baseball terms-- go to Cooperstown, so be it. It would be the least they could do after what they've done to harm their sport.

Don't know about you, but when the final whistle blows in the Super Bowl the pace quickens quite a bit thinking about the next baseball season. Pitcher and catchers will report within a couple of weeks, the final elements of the roster are coming together, that hope of spring and renewal George Will and all those fancy pants write so movingly about actually does exist.

What have we had to look forward to the past decade.

1999-- I confess that I had almost zero expectations. I certainly didn't see a year where the A's became a contender. The excitement was really around the young players-- we'd had a full year of Grieve (ROY), most of a season of Miguel tejada, and knew that Eric Chavez was on the way with Mark Mulder lurking not too far behind. Maybe I didn't follow things that closely back then but I confess I had nary a hint that the next great pitcher on the horizon would be up by May and his name was Tim Hudson.

2000-- OK, the amazing turnaround had happened. The first signs of Beane's genius had appeared, and I for one figured the division was for the taking. We all of a sudden had a stud closer in Izzy; a stud pitcher in Hudson; A stud veteran in Appier; A stud hitter in Giambi; and young help was on the way-- who cares if Ben Grieve threw like a girl and didn't seem to be panning out as a superstar?

2001-- "The Best is Yet to Come" was the A's PR refrain this off-season, and then all of a sudden here came Johnny Damon. And a potentially good starter in Cory Lidle. And some middle infielder prospect named Ellis. We had a full-time catcher now, and while there was regret in seeing Matt Stairs go, with ROY runner-up TLong, improving Tejada and Chavez, Mulder hopefully on the mend after a late injury-- and Barry Zito about to step up, this was going to be a world beater. The Yanks had escaped in the Divisional Series, but that was going to be it. The only dark cloud was the team's inability to resign MVP Jason Giambi, for we didn't really appreciate yet the limitations of the marketplace;

2002-- Damn!! So close.. and so far. Jeremy didn't slide. Jermaine busted up his leg. And now Giambi is gone forever (well, not, as it turns out), plus Damon and Isringhausen, and maybe our best chance went a glimmering. But.... Billy Koch came as a steal to replace Izzy. Zito's 2nd half was lights out-- David Justice will add some smack, and how about that Pena trade? Don't count us out so fast, no matter how many games the Mariners won last year;

2003-- And the Angels win the goddam World Series?? At least it wasn't Bonds and Co. How could we blow a series to Minnesota? How could Hudson get hurt at the worst possible time? How could Koch pitch so bad down the stretch? How could Howe use Ted Lilly in such a crucial situation? This is getting depressing. Well, Foulke is bound to be better than Koch. And while the Tejada contract situation is more depressing even than Giambi's, that Bobby Crosby guy is just a year away. And now we have a pretty darn good 2B man in Ellis. Plus Hatteberg-- he of the incredible HR to win that 20th game in a row. And the Big Three still here, though scab Lidle is history. Maybe Lilly can step in, and flamethrowing Rich Harden is the next up. We're still contenders;

2004-- Ugh. Byrnes doesn't touch the plate; Tejada stops running; Mulder is yet another pitcher who gets hurt at the worst possible time. Well, at least the albatross of TLong is gone, though one wonders if Kotsay will be worth Ramon going too. Let's see how good Crosby is. Angels slipped last year-- can they come back and threaten us? Moneyball sure has shaken the baseball establishment-- will it hamper Beane's ability to deal? Are Jeremy Brown and Nick Swisher all that?

2005-- Frustrating finish. Should have beat the Angels-- why no Harden in relief?? And now Beane really rolls the dice. Most dramatic changes since 1999-- Hudson and Mulder both gone?? Let's hope he knows what he is doing. The new Big Three (well, more like Biog 3, 4, 5 after Zito and Harden) is Blanton, Haren and Dan Meyer-- nice sound to it. Street ought to solidify the bullpen after that crazy Rhodes-Dotel season. Chavez has been plenty consistent and his glove is terrific-- but-- can't he do more??

2006-- Same old story-- Angels a bit better. Harden's health a growing concern. Zito not the same anymore. Crosby not progressing enough, though that injury vs. baltimore was key. But Haren and Blanton sure did the trick last year, after that horrific start. Team was world-beaters for most of the summer, and then injuries and they faded down the stretch. Not used to that after our incredible 2nd half runs. Frank Thomas?? Could he still have the magic? He sure came cheap.

2007-- We won a frickin' playoff series!! We won a frickin' playoff series!! MARCO.... SCUTARO!!! Who cares that we were then torched by Detroit? After 6 years it was nice to have a little bit of a glow for at least a couple of days. But now Zito is gone-- and to the Giants, for crissake. But we've gotten used to that-- Harden, Blanton, Loaiza-- still a pretty good rotation.  Swisher could be a star.. We lost the Hurt but maybe Piazza still has something in the tank. We can win this thing again. Wish Kendall could hit a bit for all that money, however;

2008-- oops. Luck-- and health-- ran out I guess. What a disaster. And now Billy unloads Haren to the DBacks-- probably a smart move can Harden and/or Blanton be that far behind?? Swisher is gone too. Well at least we can see what Daric Barton and Kurt Suzuki are like. Could we climb back up and be a contender? Maybe, but seems tough this season.. Looks like a rebuilding/retooling year. Chavez' shoulder and back are real problems... and Crosby is.... ahh, what happened to that team from way back (4 years ago) when??

2009-- Ok, we're coming back. Young pitching and more young pitching. Maybe Chavy's healthy... Holliday is a stud!! Angels have slipped-- get us a SS and let's strap it on, baby!! The Best is Yet to Come!!!!