The Y2K Interview: Tim Marchman

[Note: A post by Sip about Guillermo Mota and the New Knicks follows. Enjoy.]

The day has turned, and we've entered the cruel period known as the baseball off-season, where no infield flies or ground-rule doubles dare to tread.

To keep you readers focused on baseball matters, Y2K brings you the first in a series of inteviews with the writers and commentariat who follow the sport full-time. Today, the New York Sun's excellent baseball columnist Tim Marchman.

Y2K: How did you get into writing about baseball?

TM: I was the fiction critic of the New York Sun when the paper was launched. The paper didn't have much of a sports section for a while and, being a big fan of Bill James and Baseball Prospectus, I suggested that I could write some articles about baseball from an outside perspective, which had the twin advantages of being different from what the competition was doing and not requiring a lot of reportorial resources.

People liked the articles I was writing, so I eventually dropped the criticism and focused on the baseball. It was kind of an ass-backwards way to get into writing about baseball, but I think we could use a bit more ass-backwardsism.

Because the column was conceived from the start as being distinct from what other papers do, I've always had a lot of freedom to zero in on whatever interested me, be it intense focus on actual games or windy speculations about the nature of the game, which isn't something I at all take for granted.

Y2K: As a baseball writer in the off-season, is there enough hot-stove talk and strategizing to keep you engaged? Or does your attention turn to other sports, pursuits, etc.?

TM: The offseason is always a great deal of fun, as I'm allowed to focus less on what teams will do than what they should do, and if I want to bring in some abstruse research someone's done to support my argument, I'm allowed to do so.

Baseball is, aside from mixed martial arts, the only sport in which I'm at all interested, so my attention doesn't get zapped in the winter — whatever part of my brain is reserved for rich jocks chasing around a sphere is always reserved for the only sport worth paying attention to.

Y2K: Back in 2005, Willie Randolph seemed to make a completely infuriating and inexplicable move at least four times a week, resulting in countless bottlecaps being thrown at the TV. Not so in 2006. Is that just the difference a year makes, or did he attend winter classes or something?

TM: I think people were far too hard on him in 2005, as I didn't see what he was doing wrong. He was managing a developing club in the way it should be managed — let the players play, and take some risks.

It's easy to take things like the development of Reyes and Heilman for granted, but those were no sure things when he was hired. The most important things for a manger to get right are big-picture decisions involving roles and how to develop young players, and he was fantastic at both from the jump.

Tactical decisions can drive people insane, but his were always defensible and I don't think they really make that much difference over the course of a season anyway.

Y2K: You laid out your position on the Mets lineup last week -- we're top-heavy, Valentin and Lo Duca aren't sure things, and trading young Blastings and a righty reliever for a bigger bat in a corner outfield slot makes sense. How likely do you think a trade is, and who would you target?

TM: It's pretty tricky — the National League is so mediocre that teams have no real incentive to trade quality players, and in the American League it seems you either have teams that are in contention and thus have no reason to trade a good player, or don't have players the Mets could use.

I would overpay for Carl Crawford — young, durable, well-rounded, and signed to a cheap contract, which is a pretty good set of attributes to have.

With Manny Ramirez's contract winding down, I also think he's a viable option—if he implodes, you're not on the hook for very long.

Realistically, I think it's a lot more likely that you'll see a hodgepodge than that you'll see a blockbuster — Omar Minaya has proved quite willing to go with mystery men if the right deal isn't available, which is probably a good thing.

Y2K: If he'll come (Atlanta looks mighty good with kids in high school), is bringing Glavine back a no-brainer?

TM: I'm not clear on what kind of unspoken agreements there are, but if it wouldn't violate any understandings the Mets should exercise that $14 million option. People vastly underestimate how valuable a guy who's a lock for 200 innings and a 4.00 ERA is for a team in the Mets' position. Basically, if Glavine's open to coming back he's worth any even semi-reasonable price for a one or two-year deal.

Y2K: Most likely outcome for Oliver Perez — 200 strikeouts, middling-to-solid season in the rotation next year, unceremonious demotion to New Orleans, or out of baseball entirely? And honestly, would you be surprised by any of those results?

TM: In an actuarial sense the most likely outcome is probably that he'll be a league-average starter. My gut tells me he'll be a strong no. 2 starter — I think his problems have been down to correctable mechanical flaws and a losing environment. The only thing that would truly surprise
me would be him leaving baseball.

Y2K: You agree with us that Joe Torre's handling of the A-Rod situation was absurdly poor, but what about Derek Jeter? Doesn't the esteemed captain bear quite a bit of responsibility for letting the clubhouse situation get out of hand?

TM: I think it says a lot about Jeter that he hasn't just told the fans to lay off of Rodriguez, which certainly couldn't hurt, wouldn't cost Jeter anything one way or the other, and might actually have some impact. Rodriguez is unusually thoughtful and aware of the context within which he operates — good qualities in a human being, bad ones in a baseball player.

Y2K: On A-Rod, you wrote "Ship him to the Cubs for a box of rocks and do away with the embarrassing distraction." It's early yet, but Boras says he ain't going nowhere. If they hold him, what could we be in for?

TM: I like Scott Boras immensely, but I wouldn't take his negotiating posture very seriously as far as being predictive of future events. If A-Rod comes back, fans will make asses of themselves, he'll have another productive season, and his reputation will be tarnished further by circumstances. It was a bad fit from the beginning, and a player of his class doesn't deserve to be treated like a trophy wife.

Y2K: In the infamous SI article, A-Rod claimed he comes in for criticism for being bi-racial. That's just Joel Sherman, right?

TM: I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole.

Y2K: Plenty of prospects floating around the New York scene: Pelfrey, Humber, Blastings on the Mets' side; Phil Hughes and Duncan for the Yanks. Anyone you're particularly bullish on?

TM: Hughes is the real deal, and I like Pelfrey quite a bit. The rest look like chaff to me — Humber's starting to look rather injury prone, Duncan is a future bench player, and Milledge, if he develops to his full potential (which I don't think he will), will be adequate in a corner outfield spot.

Milledge should be traded while he still has some trade value. Keep in mind that I was saying the same thing when he was hitting like Ty Cobb in April, and that nothing would please me more than if he proved me wrong — any time I predict doom for a ballplayer I root for him
to make me eat my words.

Y2K: Which other baseball writers out there do you consider must-reads?

TM: Nate Silver is the best baseball writer in the country right now. He's the one guy who truly understands which questions to ask and how to answer them, and — at least as important — understands the limitations of his methodologies. He's just fantastic.

Alan Schwarz is truly excellent as well. Ben McGrath and Roger Angell are always worth going out of your way to read. I love the work Chris Dial does on defense, and I'm a beyond-religious reader of the New York Post and the Chicago Sun-Times.