The Hound Of Ulster

I need to get some negativity out of my system in anticipation of the New Year, so I’ll start with this.

Deal Hudson and his friends have been discussing our future Speaker over at his eponymous BLOG. (I’m not sure “eponymous” is exactly the right word there, because it’s not really a tribe. Perhaps the “place” portion of the definition bails me out, though. Either way, I’m going to use it because I love the word.)

The conversation started with THIS post from Marjorie Campbell, in which she addresses the need to battle the very notion of “pro-choice” Catholic.

Does this standard include denial of the Eucharist in a nationally publicized Mass? I think it could - if done respectfully, offering Ms. Pelosi an opportunity to revamp her schedule - so long as the Church emphasized our Catholic imperative to stop the mass killing of unborn children. But it would be a single, isolated step in the much, much broader project of debunking the myth of “pro-choice” Catholic.

She also posted a link to a National Catholic Reporter INTERVIEW with Ms. Pelosi that is equal parts hopelessly confusing, deliberately misleading, and down-right disturbing - and quite often, all three at once. Deal ADDRESSES one of the particularly misleading/disturbing quote, but there are thousands of others to choose from.

Take this one, for example:

Q: You were recently quoted as calling yourself a “conservative Catholic.” Are you?

A: I think so. I was raised, as I say, in a very strict upbringing in a Catholic home where we respected people, were observant, were practicing Catholics and that the fundamental belief was that God gave us all a free will and we were accountable for that, each of us. Each person had that accountability, so it wasn’t for us to make judgments about how people saw their responsibility and that it wasn’t for politicians to make decisions about how people led their personal lives; certainly, to a high moral standards, but when it got into decisions about privacy and all the rest, than that was something that individuals had to answer to God for, and not to politicians.

Sorry, Ms. P., but “us conservative Catholics” are big into the “admonish the sinner” side of things, as well. That doesn’t mean we can’t “love the sinner and hate the sin,” but it definitely means we won’t “ignore the sin and hope that it goes away,” either. I think I’ll chalk that one up to “confusing,” because I’m not quite sure it’s deliberately misleading - and I’m saving “disturbing” for some later stuff. (One more thing: if you’re a “conservative Catholic,” I’m a Democrat.)

What about this one?

Q: Is being a Catholic in public life a blessing or a burden?

A: Oh, it’s a blessing. I have more people praying for me.

In the family I was raised in, love of country, deep love of the Catholic Church, and love of family, were all the values I was raised in. I don’t like to have religion and politics come too closely together, but I will say that I am motivated by the Gospel of Matthew, as many people in politics are. I find it an inspiration.

What did I see the other day? The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you. The respect that we have for the individual because of the spark of divinity that we all carry serves me well in politics - to respect people and their point of view. I say that, I hope it doesn’t sound patronizing, …in a very respectful way.

My upbringing — working on the side of the angels with my parents — to help people, again according to Gospel of Matthew, and the idea …. [that we] look upon God’s creation as an act of worship - to ignore the needs of God’s creation is to dishonor the God that made them. And that we have that responsibility, all of us.

The divinity in me bows to the divinity in you? What the heck does that even mean? I can think of a couple ways it could be made to fit if someone was forcing me to make it fit, but I’m pretty sure none of those ways would boil down to “divinity = respecting people and their point of view.” That’s a perfectly human goal. (Still, mostly just confusing.)

Q: Two litmus tests that help define “conservative” and “liberal” in the church: Married priests and women priests.

A: What can I say? The record speaks for itself in some respects. I have always thought that there should have been a stronger role for women in the church. When I was little my mother always wanted me to be a nun. I didn’t think I wanted to be a nun, but I thought I might want to be a priest because their seemed to be a little more power there, a little more discretion over what was going on in the parish. I think the reality of life is that wherever God sends a vocation that marriage should not bar anyone from following that vocation. I know that that is in the future, I just don’t how long it will take.

Q: Women as priests?

A: Oh absolutely…Why not? Why not?

OK, we’re way past confusing now. I’m gonna have to go with deliberate on this one. Anyone who says that marriage should not bar anyone from following a vocation to the priesthood is being flat-out misleading. It’s to completely ignore what marriage is, and also to completely ignore how God sends vocations. If we take Ms. Pelosi at her word, that she was raised and well-formed in a strong, conservative Catholic family, she knows she’s confusing the issue here.

And what about the absurd (yet absurdly common) suggestion that there should be a stronger role for women in the Church? That’s a text-book example of revisionistic history. Or perhaps most disturbing of all: that being a priest is somehow about power?

OK, I take it back. The “power priests” bit is disturbing. But this is worse:

Having said that, the tragedy for some of us is that as much as we have worked on alleviation of poverty, and [on] social issues, and reducing violence in the world, and respecting the other person, and meeting the needs of other people, and [seeing] God’s creation as an act of worship - those relationships have been sadly affected by the decision on the part of some in the church to disassociate themselves from [some political leaders] because of our position on choice.

I won’t stand for that little bit of “misdirection,” Ms. Pelosi. The decision to “disassociate,” as you put it, is all on your shoulders. You are the one making this break from the Church, not the other way round.

I do not see how THIS can possibly be helpful.

The execution is “tragic and reason for sadness,” the Rev. Federico Lombardi said, speaking in French on Vatican Radio’s French-language news program.

In separate comments to the station’s English program, Lombardi said that capital punishment cannot be justified “even when the person put to death is one guilty of grave crimes,” and he reiterated the Catholic Church’s overall opposition to the death penalty.

But perhaps more importantly, I do not see how it can be true.

I don’t disagree with the first paragraph, of course. Despite WFB’s attempts, I cannot feel happy and Saddam’s death. It is tragic for many reasons - his actual death, the incredible evil he practiced during his lifetime, the combination of the two causing one to wonder how ready he could possibly be to meet his Maker, and many other things - and I found myself moved to tears by the pictures of the aftermath for reasons that I cannot completely comprehend.

But to say that capital punishment “cannot be justified even when the person put to death is one guilty of grave crimes?” That’s just not right. Take a look at a COUPLE LINKS From the CCC:

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically non-existent.”

Saying that Saddam’s death does not fit this criteria would be one thing. I’m not sure I’d agree, but I could understand the objection. But that’s not what Father Lombardi is saying. He’s saying capital punishment cannot be justified, no matter who is being put to death. That’s a universal statement, not a particular one - and it’s flat-out contradicted by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. #2266 and #2267 lay out specific ways in which it is allowed, while stressing that its necessity is “very rare, if not practically non-existent.” That seems to carefully avoid saying it cannot be justified.

To characterize the Church as as holding a position of “overall opposition to the death penalty” seems fair enough. John Paul II had prudential reasons for opposing the death penalty in every case, and it was closely tied into our culture’s nearly total disregard for the sanctity of human life. But it was an effort to correct a problem by “bending the stick backwards;” to “err” on the side of concern for human life. It was not based on the fact that there is never a valid (or logical) reason for capital punishment.

Am I missing something really basic here? Or could there be issues of context? Heaven knows the media likes to pit us against ourselves. Maybe that’s part of the problem here.

I hope.

Jayson Stark is unsurpassed in his ability to capture what makes baseball great: the sheer RANDOMNESS in the midst of all the order.

Take this, for example:

In an Aug. 23 game against the White Sox, Tigers reliever Jamie Walker managed to strike out a hitter he never faced (Scott Podsednik). So how’d that happen? Simple. Podsednik, batting against a right-hander (Colby Lewis), fouled off two bunt attempts. Whereupon Tigers manager Jim Leyland brought in a left-hander (Walker). Which inspired White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen to send up Brian Anderson to pinch-hit for Podsednik. Whereupon Anderson swung and missed — for a strikeout that wound up on the permanent records of Walker and Podsednik, even though they were never on the field at the same time.

Of course, the more interesting question might be: “what the heck were Leyland and Guillen thinking?” Talk about over-managing.

But wait. It gets better:

But Reds reliever Jason Standridge can top that last trick. On Aug. 6, he recorded an out without throwing a pitch — while retiring a player who had faced the pitcher before him. OK, how’d that happen? Also simple. Standridge came out of the bullpen to relieve Kyle Lohse. And his first act was to step off the rubber, throw to second on an appeals play — and get an out when the umpires ruled that Braves runner Willy Aybar had missed second base. That also subtracted a hit from the previous batter, Marcus Giles — another hitter who had never faced Standridge.

OK, so those are bizarre scorecard issues, mostly. But check out this:

After batting right-handed in the first 230 at-bats of his career, Brewers pitcher Tomo Ohka decided to hit left-handed Aug. 24. So was there any doubt he’d reach base and drive in a run three at-bats in a row? He reached on catcher’s interference (with the bases loaded) his first time up, looped a two-run single his next time up and lined an RBI single his third time up. He was 4 for his previous 55 batting right-handed, by the way.

Why did Ohka decide to switch? Who knows. But it worked. Unlike this:

The Mariners somehow “hit” into a triple play in a Sept. 2 game in Tampa Bay — without a ball being put in play. How’d that happen? It wasn’t easy. Raul Ibanez got called out on strikes for the first out. Adrian Beltre got nailed stealing second for the second out. Then Jose Lopez bolted for the plate and got thrown out at home for the third out. Try that one on your X Box sometime.

Ouch!  But this is the one that really caught my attention, for obvious reasons:

Finally, if you needed convincing that literally anything is possible in baseball, we refer you to the astounding finish of the Dodgers’ Sept. 18 game with San Diego. They entered the bottom of the ninth trailing by four runs. And then …

The same team that was last in the league in home runs (the Dodgers) hit four ninth-inning home runs in a row to tie the game.

And did it in a span of seven pitches.

And hit them off two pitchers (Jon Adkins and Trevor Hoffman) who had given up three homers all season to the previous 432 hitters they’d faced, in a combined 108 appearances.

And then, after falling behind in the top of the 10th, the same team hit another homer in the 10th to turn a loss into a win.

Insane. And what about this?

Hall of Fame pitcher Jim Bunning had a 1-5 record as a high school senior, and a 55-66 record in the Minor Leagues.

Or this?

On May 2, 1954, Cardinals great Stan Musial becomes the first man to hit five home runs in one day. He clubs three in a 10-6 victory over the Giants, then adds two more during a 9-7 loss in the nightcap. Among those in attendance is eight-year-old Nate Colbert, who in 1972 will become the second player to hit five homers in a doubleheader.

I rest my case.

Here’s a little something from Senator X:

While we are naturally focused on Iraq, a larger war is emerging. On one side are extremists and terrorists led and sponsored by Iran, on the other moderates and democrats supported by the United States. Iraq is the most deadly battlefield on which that conflict is being fought. How we end the struggle there will affect not only the region but the worldwide war against the extremists who attacked us on Sept. 11, 2001.

Because of the bravery of many Iraqi and coalition military personnel and the recent coming together of moderate political forces in Baghdad, the war is winnable. We and our Iraqi allies must do what is necessary to win it.

And here’s Senator Y, who is busy visiting Syria:

When asked by Condoleezza Rice to cancel his visit, he said that “I deferred to them a year ago, and I deferred to them last August. If there were any signs the administration policy [in the Middle East] was working, I’d defer to them again.”

He called on the administration “to conduct a dialogue with Syria to solve the problems in the region.”

He described the current policy towards Syria as” not successful,” and stressed that “dialogue is very important and more could be achieved with regard to region’s problems.”

He also indicated that “Syria wants peace in accordance with the land for peace principle presented by the United Nations,” adding that the USA is capable of playing a positive role to revive peace talks on the Syrians-Israeli track, a matter that requires further dialogue between Syria and America in addition to all concerned parties.

He joined Sens. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), John Kerry (D., Mass.), and Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) as senators who have visited Syria in the last month.

What’s the punchline, you ask?

Senator X is Joe LIEBERMAN, the “Independent Democratic senator” from Connecticut. And Senator Y is Arlen SPECTER, the Democratic senator from Pennsylvania. Only he claims to be a Republican.  He’s always been a liberal, but the recent elections gives him more cover than he has ever had before.  I can “hardly wait.”   (Michael Rubin ADDRESSES his visit in scathing detail.)

Meanwhile, oil prices reach their year-end LEVELS, and Chicken Little heads home - but not before throwing the word “average” around a great deal.

On Friday, light sweet crude for January delivery rose 52 cents to settle at $61.05 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange, up a penny from where they ended last year.

Lastly, HERE is a little NFL advice from Bill Simmons:

For all you college kids reading this, we implore you, do not play ANY form of the “Let’s drink every time Brett Favre gets mentioned” game on Sunday night. You will die.

Indeed.

Saddam’s impending departure has brought out a number of interesting thoughts today, and the comments are heating up everywhere. CAFETERIA and AMY point to this POST from Christopher Blosser over at The Ratzinger Fan Club. It is very long, and very interesting. I hesitate to say “comprehensive,” but it is pretty darn close. And it contains this famous quote from B16:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

But this is the most interesting thing Blosser addresses, and one that has been confusing me considerably:

The dispute with Martino has largely focused on deterrence — whether Saddam’s presence constitutes a threat and whether “non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor.” This has been the chief basis of Michael’s criticism of the Iraqi verdict and bloggers who support the verdict (or at any rate, disagree with Martino’s characterization of the verdict as “a crime”).

I do not feel particularly qualified to discuss the legitimacy of the execution based on deterrence — to do so would require specific knowledge of the Baathist resistance in Iraq, the threat posed by those who would hope to restore Saddam to power, and other societal factors which are beyond my competence. (I don’t think Martino is especially privy to this kind of information either, hence I question his judgment).

Moving on, I think the strongest argument in favor of Saddam’s execution could be made on the basis of retribution, and it is not at all surprising to see a number of other Catholics arguing this as well.

Dulles believes that “the retribution administered by the state is largely symbolic, and instructional [alluding to] an order of divine justice” — and that preserving “the moral order of society” can be accomplished by other means of punishment than execution. However, he has also recognized that “if the Pope were to deny that the death penalty could be an exercise of retributive justice, he would be overthrowing the tradition of two millenia of Catholic thought, denying the teaching of several previous popes, and contradicting the teaching of Scripture.”

I have to wonder if the case of Saddam Hussein isn’t just one of those situations, where the gravity and extent of his crimes constitute one of those horrific situations where the death penalty is deserved for the preservation of the moral order?

It’s this “deterrence vs. retribution” thing that never gets enough attention. I think that any argument for the death penalty based on deterrence is questionable - not because deterring someone is an insufficient justification for capital punishment, but because our ability to “deter” will change. The need to “put dangerous criminals away permanently” made much more sense (as a justification) in the past than it does now. And I don’t like to base my arguments on those sorts of things, because I like to think that my argument will be the same now as it will in 100 years.

HUGH HEWITT and CAPTAIN ED provide slightly less RC-oriented discussions of the upcoming event. They’re mostly concerned with the Grey Lady’s bizarre disagreement with the verdict, but they do touch on the issue.

And here’s BUCKLEY discussing the matter in one of the most peculiar articles I’ve ever seen from the man. What’s this talk about fornication? Followed up immediately by the notion of chastity? What is he getting at, anyway? He’s not saying it’s OK because it feels good, right? I wish he had just stopped here:

We are reminded that there is no mathematically satisfying way to measure the life of Saddam up against all the lives he destroyed. As well suggest that an execution of Hitler or Stalin or Mao could ever have balanced the scales on what they had done. Capital punishment is exacted, in modern law, as punishment for taking a single life. Taking hundreds, thousands, millions of lives mocks the very idea of executable justice. But the symbol of Saddam on the gallows is a symbol of justice pursued, even if plenary satisfaction is not possible.

Let’s all remember to spend some time praying for Saddam’s soul. If anyone was ever in need of prayers before meeting their Maker, it is he.

THIS story seems a bit shocking.

Early Wednesday, Goldman Sachs became one of the first newspaper industry analyst firms to analyze the shocking announcement of the pending sale of the Star Tribune of Minneapolis by McClatchy Co. to a private equity firm. In its heading, Goldman stated it plainly: “Minneapolis valuation a Bearish signal for newspaper industry.”



While McClatchy will “generate a tax benefit of about $160 million,” Goldman observes, it is also taking a hit on the sale price, having paid $1.2 billion for the paper in 1998, now selling it for $530 million.

The fact that it dropped in value isn’t really that surprising. We’ve been seeing a bit of that lately, along with persistent denials of the fact on the part of newspaper editorial boards everywhere. (Sorry, guys. Lying repeatedly about your subscriptions doesn’t really count as a “valid defense.”)

The thing that is shocking is the amount of money it lost. Sure, you say, it’s only about 55%. But we’re talking about $670 million. Let me repeat that: MILLION! How do chop that much value out of an investment? And in something like 8 years?

McClatchy must need a really big tax break.

(Captain Ed is in that area, and has a COUPLE POSTS on it. The one about the political implications on the “Strib’s” editorial board was particularly interesting to me. For obvious reasons.)

Millbloggers are an interesting BREED. And they play an important role in the public perception of Iraq. Or perhaps I should say that they can and should play an important role. At this point, they’re still mostly talking to the crowd. Folks who tend to think there is more to the Iraq story than the talking points being presented by the MSM know about them. But their scope is still far too limited. Not sure what exactly can be done to change that situation, but I sure hope we find something. (In related news, millbloggers are in HARM’S way far more than the rest of us. Which is appropriate, because they are also far braver than we.)

They can also in THIS sort of thing, which is almost impossible for anyone else. The expertise and “boots-on-the-ground” knowledge required is pretty much unique to them. Technology strikes a blow for “the good guys” once again.

Speaking of “boots-on-the-ground,” Harry’s GOING in himself. Admirable, though I doubt he’ll be put into any significantly dangerous situations. (Which I’m fine with, actually.)

Bench Memo’s Matthew J. Franck has an interesting RESPONSE to that SCOTUSBlog criticism of Ford from yesterday. He thinks it’s largely unfair. (He does, however, correctly identify Stevens as a huge problem. And that was Ford’s fault.)

Ever heard of The National Film Registry? That organization that is responsible for serving as “an invaluable means to advance public awareness of the richness, creativity and variety of American film heritage, and to dramatize the need for its preservation?” Well, they’ve picked this year’s WINNERS, and it’s an interesting list. (That “Librarian of Congress James H. Billington” guy has an interesting job. I wonder what I’d have to do to qualify…)

I am constantly amazed at how imaginatively words can be used. Take THIS incident, for example.

“One of the passengers on board the Moscow-Geneva flight said he had an explosive device and ordered (the crew) to change course,” Lev Koshlyakov, deputy general director of the Russian airline, told Reuters.

“There are reasons to believe that this was an act of hooliganism,” he added.

An act of hooliganism? That’s new. Not sure it’s a great way to describe that sort of “prank,” but it’s definitely new.

Lastly, I found someone who thinks the Zito deal is even more ridiculous than I thought it WAS.

..or maybe I should say “misses the FUNERAL.”

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will miss the state funeral for former President Gerald Ford at the Capitol Rotunda on Saturday night, opting instead to lead a delegation to South America with an expected stop at the Machu Picchu Inca ruins.

Reid, D-Nev., left Wednesday afternoon from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland with a bipartisan group of five other senators, including Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., the incoming assistant majority leader, for what has been described as a weeklong visit to Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru.

The highlight of the trip is said to be separate meetings with the presidents of the three nations, with the last one scheduled in Peru on Tuesday afternoon.

“They would be difficult to cancel,” Reid spokesman Jim Manley said via mobile phone as the congressional delegation took off in a U.S. military plane.

The senators are also scheduled to be in Cuzco, Peru, on Sunday, which would give them an opportunity to view the nearby Inca ruins and anything else in advance of New Year’s Eve.

Captain Ed is UNCONVINCED.

Baloney. It’s not hard to cancel; all one has to do is to contact the consulates of those nations and explain that when one of our former Presidents pass away, elected leadership is expected to attend the funeral. Nor is it the case that Ford died after they left the country, as the junket started with an afternoon flight today.

They do have an excuse, however. Their spokesman noted that relations with the three nations are in need of improvement. Apparently, Reid has a deadline for improved relations that requires him to accomplish it on the day of Gerald Ford’s funeral.

What a classless act, and Reid, Durbin, Kent Conrad, Judd Gregg, Robert Bennett, and Ken Salazar should be ashamed of themselves. If Harry Reid can’t figure out that his new position as Majority Leader carries some extra responsibilities, then perhaps the Democrats need to find someone who does understand it.

That last bit is particularly compelling to me. I don’t think we want to argue that everyone needs to go to Ford’s funeral. But I think it’s also perfectly fair to say that certain obligations go along with certain positions of authority. Being a member of the “Select 100″ is probably a sufficient reason to be present at the funeral. Being a Majority Leader in the “Select 100″ most definitely is.

Hum dum dum ditty dum

Hum dum dum

Oh the wind is lashing lustily

And the trees are thrashing thrustily

And the leaves are rustling gustily

So it’s rather safe to say

That it seems that it may turn out to be

It feels that it will undoubtedly

It looks like a rather blustery day, today

It seems that it may turn out to be

Feels that it will undoubtedly

Looks like a rather blustery day, today.

That’s a perfect description of last night. Our house is in a canyon - which is partially why the temperature there is usually a good 5-10 degrees cooler than anywhere else in the county. And last night, that fact contributed to a bit of an “extreme weather condition.” The wind started to pick up considerably on my way back from a Costco run. And by the time I was safely home around 7:30pm, it was blowing dramatically.

By 11:00pm, it was howling and whipping around the house like a banshee with a severe toothache. (At least I think it was the wind. No deaths in the family that I know of, so it couldn’t have been a real banshee, right?) The screens on the breezeway managed to stay attached, though I’m not exactly sure how. There were a couple times where I thought they were going to pop right off their frames and fly into the room.

After watching this battle for a couple minutes, I decided there was nothing I could (or wanted) to do, and went to bed. The noise was a bit distracting at first, as was the fact that our “motion sensor” porch light kept turning on in response to the large pieces of flying debris that sailed through its field of “vision” every couple of seconds. (My screens stayed on, it’s true. But the same cannot be said for any of the small branches or twigs on the surrounding trees. They’re all on the walkway outside my front door - along with the large blue tarps our landlord uses to cover his hay.)

Good thing I didn’t go outside. I might have pulled a “Piglet.” And there was no one there to catch me. Plus, I wasn’t wearing a scarf. Scary.

Some THINGS never change.

Reds center fielder Ken Griffey Jr. suffered a broken left hand during an accident at his Orlando home, the club announced on Friday.

…Krivsky and the club did not reveal details of how the 18-year veteran outfielder broke his hand. Telephone messages were left with both Griffey and his agent, Brian Goldberg.

Wow. Talk about snake-bitten. I remember the Pre-Cincy Griffey. There was talk about whether he would become the greatest ever. Then this happened:

A torn patellar tendon in his right knee limited Griffey to 70 games in 2002. He was held to only 53 games in 2003 because of season-ending surgery to repair a torn tendon in his right ankle. In 2004, a complete tear of the right hamstring was the most serious of his career and came after 83 games. He missed the final 26 games of 2005 with sprained right foot.

In 2006, a strained biceps tendon in his right knee in April put Griffey on the disabled list for a month. A dislocated right toe suffered Sept. 4 while trying to climb the outfield fence limited him to just two pinch-hit at-bats over the Reds’ final 24 games.

Amazing.

HERE is the ever-fascinating John Sickels on the Dodger prospects.

The Dodgers in One Sentence: this system has thinned out a lot due to major league graduations, but they’ve shown the ability to recharge quickly.

Down in the comments, there’s great stuff from someone named “NPurcell.” Well, great stuff if you’re a Dodger fan.

Meloan is a huge sleeper pick and at the worst, looks to be a dominating set up man. Since turning pro, his curveball has morphed into a “spiking monster” (from goldstein at BP) and he has added velocity to his fastball. The strikeout rate at all 3 spots and AFL prove this. Personally, i want him to go back to starting next year but I think the dodgers are fantasizing about a meloan/broxton late inning tandem. The way he jumped 3 levels with his ridiculous K rate, has to be a B+ in my book. And his 2007 season will only be as a 22 yr old as well.

Josh Bell also seems to be a bit underrated here due to being in the lower minors. Dodger officials call Bell Kemp lite for his power potential and his switch hitting skills are also a plus. Last year in the GCL and this year as a 19yr old in the pioneer league, he showed good average, on base and walking skills. his power blossomed this year but it was at the expense of strikeouts. The strikouts might give pause for a bit of concern, but the tools are definately there to improve drastically. This isnt on the same level as last year when John gave Kemp a C+ but Bell has similar hitting potential and the scouting reports should at least give him a B.

On your list, I think Hu and cory dunlap are both too high. Dunlap’s weight is never not going to be a problem. If he saw pictures of him this past year, he looked easily to be 280lb+. His patience and power was nice this year, but his numbers still are not going to cut it for a fat first basemen with a fringe glove and repeating a league. Hu’s slap approach really stalled in AA and abreu has surpassed him with the bat. Ive read some reports that Abreu’s glove has so significantly increased to the point where he can play a reliable shortstop now. While Hu’s defense is dazzling, I dont think that is worth a straight B grade.

Nice.

Lastly, there’s the big Zito NEWS.

Left-handed pitcher Barry Zito has agreed to a seven-year, $126 million contract, according to The Associated Press and other sources.

Wow.  That’s $18M a year, which is pretty steep for someone whose most appealing characteristic is his consistency.   The current market is a bit crazy, so the “cost-per” isn’t absolutely insane.  But 7 years?  Wow.  He’ll be 35 when that’s done.  Paying a 28-year-old $18M is one thing.  Paying a 35-year-old that much is something else entirely.  (I’m with Blue Notes on this ONE.  Replacing Schmidt with Zito keeps the Giants treading water.  But they’re already a mess, and didn’t get any better.  Which is perfectly fine with me.)