Ken Davidoff's baseball insider

What a perfect juxtaposition last night, with Johan Santana and Phil Hughes pitching about 10 miles apart from one another.

Santana pitched adequately in picking up a no-decision against the Pirates, in a game the Mets won, 5-4, in 11 innings. I attended this game, and Santana worked hard, throwing 114 pitches over a season-low 5 2/3 innings. He mentioned the cold weather as a deterrent. He also mentioned that the Mets' scouting report indicated that Nate McLouth, who homered in the first, was supposed to take a few pitches, and that he got a few bad calls on the at-bat that produced Jason Bay's fifth-inning homer.

Over in the Bronx, meanwhile, Phil Hughes pitched horribly in losing to the Tigers, and from reading colleague Anthony Rieber's story, it sounds like Hughes' next start could be for Triple-A Scranton/Wilkes-Barres.

Does this mean that Yankees GM Brian Cashman goofed, when he passed up the opportunity to deal Hughes for Santana? In my humble opinion, it is way too early to make such a judgment.

It's hardly a shocker that Santana is posting a vastly superior 2008 to Hughes. Cashman's commitment to Hughes, Ian Kennedy and the rest of the organization's youngsters is about anything but 2008. It's about the hope of building the proverbial "player development machine," so that they don't have to overspend on the free-agent market to fill needs. The possibility that Hughes and Kennedy would need minor-league time was part of that commitment. If the Yankees don't make the playoffs in 2008, so be it. Cashman will sleep well, even if the decision costs him his job.

As stated here back when the Mets made the Santana trade, Omar Minaya performed an excellent job in waiting for the Twins to settle for what still looks like an uninspiring package of players. Have you seen Carlos Gomez's numbers? Yeesh. As you can see here, Kevin Mulvey is pitching decently for Triple-A Rochester, while Phil Humber is not. Deolis Guerra is pitching all right at Class A Fort Myers.

But you can bet that Minaya, who is set to ignore baseball's slotting system for the amateur draft after adhering to it the last couple of years, wants to build his organization to a point where it doesn't have to invest nine figures in a pitcher from another team in order to pick up an ace.

I think that the Santana trade will allow the Mets to close Shea Stadium with their first World Series title since 1986. Yet that high will last for only so long. In 2005, Red Sox fans, fresh off the first title in almost all of their lifetimes, resorting to booing 2004 heroes like Keith Foulke and Kevin Millar. Now the Red Sox, thanks to a strong farm system, are set to make a strong run every year, thanks to their commitment to player development, which includes patience. Last year, Dustin Pedroia hit .182 in April. The Sox stuck with him, and he proceeded to win the AL Rookie of the Year award.

If Hughes ultimately bombs, then sure, you can fault Cashman for not dealing him. But we need much more time here. If Hughes re-discovers himself in the minors, comes back and pitches like the guy who beat the Indians last October, then all will be well. And let's make sure that Santana justifies the Mets' long-term investment in him, beyond just this year and even next year and 2010.

You could argue that the true turning point in the Roger Clemens saga was not December 13, 2007, the day Major League Baseball released the Mitchell Report, but January 7, 2008, the day that Clemens' attorney Rusty Hardin decided it would be a good idea to publicly air a taped phone conversation between Clemens and Brian McNamee, which included information about McNamee's sick son.

Not only did the tape fail to vindicate Clemens, but it turned McNamee from The Rocket's conflicted whistle-blower to his mortal enemy. McNamee knew so much about Clemens that he didn't disclose to Mitchell, and that information has trickled out for months, slowly, painfully.

Now, I don't know who leaked this latest story about Clemens' extra-curricular activities, but let's face reality. Who benefits from this? McNamee and his attorneys, and the singer, herself, who is now, (not) shockingly, confirming the report. After all, I had never heard of this singer before, and I've spent two weeks of my life in Nashville.

I agree with what Wally Matthews wrote in his column today, and I'll take it a step further: Not only is this irrelevant, but if McNamee's lawyers actually called this woman to the stand in Clemens' defamation case against McNamee, it would backfire.

History has proven that people don't like going into other people's bedrooms. Look at how Bill Clinton ended up benefiting from the Republicans' dogged pursuit of the Monica Lewinsky stuff. If this Clemens case actually goes to trial, and either Clemens or McNamee requests a jury, I think a jury would feel reviled by this information. The jurors would get upset not with Clemens, but with McNamee's lawyers, for trying to tie this into Clemens' credibility.

I feel no sympathy for Clemens. He opened this door when he released that tape. But my hunch is that McNamee's attorneys are too smart to introduce this information to a jury. They'll be content with the short-term public humiliation that Clemens and his family might feel right now. This will prove to be not a news story, only a gossip item.

Flew back from Miami yesterday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to getting back into the groove of the season. The standings this morning are very funny. Love that Baltimore, Tampa Bay, Oakland and Florida are all playoff contenders. Extremely confident that none of that quartet will make the playoffs.

Let's catch up quickly:

I promised myself, when the blog craze worked its way down the food chain to me, that I would never blog while on vacation. Yet I'm in my hotel room, the rest of the family is asleep, I'm not tired and I'm trying to stay up to see what happens in this Yankees game. As I type, it's White Sox 6, Yankees 5, top 6th. Tough break for Phil Hughes. Why didn't Joe Girardi start a reliever?

Anyway, here I am, breaking my self-imposed embargo, following the tradition of the vacation-ignoring Watchdog. Figured I'd check in to see what was on your minds.

I've been following the scores and basic news on my Blackberry and complimenary copy of USA Today. I watched the last inning and a half of last night's Yankees-White Sox game, since it was on ESPN, but that's been it for me since the game when Kyle Farnsworth earned his suspension.

So, some quick thoughts:

1. The Mets will take two of three over the Phillies at Citizens Bank Park. Jose Reyes, liberated to act like his old self again, will hit three triples, steal five bases and instigate a brawl with Miguel Olivo.

2. The Yankees will win two of three against the Orioles in Baltimore, even though Joe Girardi, scarred by his Manny Ramirez experiences, will overcompensate by intentionally walking Jay Payton with a base open.

3. After Yankees fans object to LaTroy Hawkins wearing Roger Clemens' uniform number 22, Hawkins will encounter similar grief for trying 17 ("How dare you do that to Mickey Rivers!?"), 29 ("We love Mike Stanton!"), 36 ("Does Mike Myers mean nothing to you?!") and 38 ("Chase Wright is The Man!") before settling on 41. "That's OK," the fans will say, "we hated Randy Johnson."

4. David Ortiz will finally figure out why he's in such a slump, as the Red Sox will confess that they've secretly replaced his usual coffee with Folger's Crystals.

5. OK, now here's your question, substituting for a fifth prediction: Do any of you care about the length of the Yankees-Red Sox games? People in the media enjoy complaining about it, and look, full disclosure, a tidy, 2-hour, 45-minute game makes my life easier. But I don't mind the 4-hour games terribly. What do you, the customers, think?

This got lost in the blog cracks, as Major League Baseball and the Players Association released the tweaks to their drug-testing program on Friday afternoon. By the time Monday morning rolled around, we were all thinking about how the Yankees and Mets were in major trouble.

But upon having a few moments to reflect yesterday and re-read the press release, I thought it was important to discuss how the agreement corrects some of the missteps that our pal George Mitchell made in his infamous report.

First of all, the wording in the press release is vague enough that, when I wrote this story for Newsday last week, I inferred that named players would have to perform community service in return for amnesty for Bud Selig. In other words, "If you don't do this, you're going to be in trouble."

That is not accurate. While no one (including Jay Gibbons and Jose Guillen, pictured, who had received 15-game suspensions and now are free) will be penalized, it's not like you'll see Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens co-starting in a public service announcement about steroids. The union promised only that "some" players named by Mitchell will participate. You can count on those who have publicly apologized, like Andy Pettitte and Brian Roberts, to be a part of that campaign. This allowed Bud Selig to save some face, in that he could say that he imposed "some" form of discipline on the players named by Mitchell.

Most interesting, to me, is provision 9 of the agreement:

In future investigations, allegations of player misconduct will not be disclosed publicly by the Commissioner's Office unless discipline is imposed. A description of the evidence and allegations against a player being investigated will be provided to him before any investigatory interview.

This is very much of an indictment of Mitchell's methodology. It was an abomination that Mitchell wouldn't tell the players what he had on them unless they ageed to meet with him _ and then went ahead and publicized what he learned, even if the allegations didn't violate the collective bargaining agreement. Now, that won't happen again.

Let's hope that history frowns upon Mitchell's conduct. Certainly, this concession by MLB doesn't reflect well on Mr. Impeccable. Not that Congress would ever challenge one of their former fraternity brothers.

By the way, did you know that Mitchell has done lobbying for a tobacco company? I wish I had learned that while the investigation was still ongoing.

I didn't write about yesterday's unveiling of the Jackie Robinson Rotunda at Citi Field for Newsday. Jim Baumbach took care of that for us, and wrote a fine story. But I did get re-introduced to Mrs. Robinson, and during last night's Mets game, I spent a few minutes in the Robinson family's luxury box. Sharon Robinson, Jackie and Rachel's daughter, also attended.

From watching Mrs. Robinson operate _ participating in the pre-game ceremony, going on the Mets' SNY broadcast, entertaining guests in the box _ you'd guess that she was closer to 65 than her actual 85. Her energy level is remarkable. In the fifth inning, as people prepared to leave and bid her a good night, she asked, out of concern, "How are you getting home?"

The nature of my job calls for me to interview famous, accomplished people and not be fazed by the assignment. But meeting with Mrs. Robinson (this photo, with Mike Cameron, is from a few years ago) carries a different sensation. How can you not be blown away what she and Jackie endured? And then, to think that Rachel Robinson has dedicated her last 35-plus years, since Jackie's passing, to a foundation in Jackie's name. They send minority students to college, a most simple, elegant mission dedicated to giving more opportunities to more youngsters.

Since September 11, 2001, I have been very cognizant of using the word "hero" in writing about sports. But Mrs. Robinson is a true hero, in my mind. For serving as her husband's partner as he tried to change the world, and for guiding the Foundation to help so many young scholars.

The people we discuss day-to-day on this blog, from Bud Selig to George "Mr. Impeccable" Mitchell to Don Fehr to the owners, general managers, managers and players, let us down so very often. So consider April 15 baseball's annual Thanksgiving. We get to thank Mrs. Robinson for all that she and Jackie have done, and all that they continue to do.

No, not because they beat your club in that heartbreaking NLCS Game 7 at Shea Stadium.

Because that team exemplifies the duality of competition. You're not playing your season in a vacuum. To the contrary, your success is measured wholly against that of your foes.

I know, I ain't gonna get an inviation from Mensa for this blog post. But at times like this, when the Mets are facing what feels like a crucial week, it's worth reminding yourself of this reality.

For while the Mets (5-6 entering tonight's game against Washington) have done nothing to erase memories of their 2007 collapse _ to the contrary, they've churned up more than one sensation of deja vu _ let's not forget that their primary NL East foes are dealing with their own agita.

The Phillies have failed to capitalize on last year's thrilling comeback with a strong start. Instead, they're 6-7, having been mired by injuries to Jimmy Rollins and Shane Victorino. Second-year starting pitcher Kyle Kendrick, who emerged from nowhere last year to bail out the Phils, looks like a one-year wonder so far.

In Atlanta, meanwhile, the Braves have lost Tom Glavine and closer Rafael Soriano to injuries, and Mike Hampton never even made it onto the mound. Bobby Cox's group is 5-7.

I'm extremely confident that the Marlins, currently the NL East leaders at 7-5, won't be able to sustain that pace. So how many victories will it take to win this divison? I think less than the 89 the Phillies won last year. And the Mets currently have the best winning percentage among themselves, the Phillies and the Braves.

Those '06 Cardinals tallied a seven-game losing streak and two eight-game losing streaks, and yet they managed to hold onto the NL Central with an 83-78 record. And once that happened, they started from scratch at 0-0, and they somehow eliminated the Padres, Mets (thanks to Yadier Molina) and Tigers en route to a parade.

The Mets have plenty of issues, and if they continue to put up losses like Sunday's, then perhaps there will be a shakeup in the manager's office.

Yet I still think the Mets have too much talent, in the talent-barren NL East, for such a scenario to develop. They might put up a losing record in the American League. But that's not their problem.

Certainly, the Mets themselves shouldn't think of clubs like the '06 Cardinals. They seem too relaxed, as is. But fans could try it, just in order to preserve some sanity.