I don’t get the sense that there’s much Super Bowl enthusiasm around these parts, but here’s a place to talk about the game just in case. That includes the best parts like the ads, the entertainment, and the Puppy Bowl.

My guess: Saints pull the upset.

Apologies for the radio silence the past few days. I was occupied first with preparing for the giant blizzard, subsequently with handling its presence and aftermath. This isn’t a weather blog but I can’t let the moment pass without saying: holy shit.

This is nothing like it was back in December, and it’s worse even than the smack we got in ‘03. There was a thunderstorm — lightning and all — at about 3:30 this morning while the snow fell and swirled at a rate of about three inches per hour. Depending on the drifts there’s anywhere from two to three feet on the ground. More in some places. Click that picture for a larger version to get a sense of what I mean.

Maybe they’re laughing at us up in, say, Buffalo. Fair enough. This is still epic.

Luckily no significant Baltimore sports stories broke during that time. Erik Bedard returned to the Mariners but we knew that was coming. As much as I like the guy I’m glad he didn’t return just now. The most optimistic estimate of when he’ll be available is May, and even if that proves true there’s no way to know how much he’ll have. Not a great fit for the Orioles.

I’ve been working off and on since Thursday on a post that’s somewhat sports-related, somewhat not. It’s fairly in-depth so I need some dedicated time to make it right. I couldn’t fit it in with the snow, but hopefully it will go live tomorrow or Monday. I’ll also go ahead and provide a Super Bowl thread Sunday with my guess (prediction wouldn’t be the right word) on the winner.

Finally, I’d love to talk some more Terps basketball in the run-up to March. I like this year’s team quite a bit and I was quite impressed with their road win the other night at Florida State. If there’s an interest I’ll try to give them some more attention.

If you’re local, stay safe out there. If you’re not local, be glad.

May as well grab the low-hanging fruit first, right?

It couldn’t be more simple: Matt Wieters is the man. He’s the can’t-miss prospect turned rookie sensation who, back on May 29, reminded us what it was like to feel the full force of a sold-out hometown crowd at Camden Yards. With all due respect to the other young players, it is Wieters who most embodies our hope.

It helps that he didn’t disappoint during his first year. Despite some growing pains he finished with solid numbers: .288 AVG, .340 OBP, 43 RBI, 9 HR in 96 games. He struck out way more than he walked (86 to 28) but that’s not so crazy for a rookie. Perhaps most telling, he hit .362 with three homers and 14 RBI in September.

What I loved most about him was his demeanor. The kid is already a pro — nothing rattled him all season. He goes about his business with seemingly little or no regard for the outside influences swirling around him. He’s polished, as you’d expect from a Boras client, but not so much so that it becomes annoying. Which is a polite way of saying he’s not Mark Teixeira.

My gut sense is that he’s similar to Nick Markakis. A strong presence on the team but someone who might not have the right personality to fully embrace being its face. That’s just a guess, though. We don’t have enough to go on. And since we already have someone developing into that role (more on that later), it probably doesn’t matter much.

Wieters is our catcher now and for the future, and every indication points to him becoming an impact player sooner than later. Muster all the excitement you want about his 2010 season. It’s justified.

Plenty of uncertainty remains in terms of who will back him up. The only other catcher on the 40-man roster right now is Craig Tatum. He was a waiver claim from the Reds back in November. Three other catchers — Michael Hernandez, Chad Moeller, and Caleb Joseph — have spring training invites.

I’d bet that Moeller has the inside track. He performed well enough as the backup last year and he’s already familiar with the pitchers. But, that’s what spring is for. Maybe someone else steps up and makes a case. I’m not too worried about it one way or the other.

I’m expecting something along the lines of .290 with 20 HR and 85 RBI from Wieters this year. I figure he’ll couple that with very strong defense and a good relationship with the pitchers. Barring injury (knock on wood), this position is locked in.

(photo via Keith Allison)

If when we talk about the progress the Orioles have made we’re “drinking the kool aid,” we’re not the only ones.

Writing for mlb.com, Hal Bodley says that “every indication points to dramatic improvement for 2010.” I don’t know that “dramatic” is the word I’d use, but I won’t stop Bodley if he wants to go there.

Bodley’s take on the team, though, is the least interesting part of the article. There are some thoughts on Millwood and Tejada and some nice quotes from Andy MacPhail about the decision-making process and the goals for 2010. These are also good, but still not the most interesting.

The real news is buried at the bottom. Bodley had a chance to speak to Peter Angelos, and I have a feeling he might have poked the hive.

Angelos talks about how the World Series has become “strictly a money game” because “a couple of teams decided they were going to buy their way” in. He follows it up by saying that “It’s a question of how much money you can generate,” and that “Once in a while there is an exception to that rule, but it cannot be sustained year-to-year.”

From there he essentially goes on to call for a salary cap without ever actually uttering those words, saying:

“That’s going to require probably some ingenious way of getting everyone to at least be close in the dollars they have available to pay the players they think they need to be competitive.”

We know what’s coming next. It’s as predictable as the daily tides (and almost as interesting). There will be people who seize upon these remarks and declare them further evidence that Angelos isn’t willing to spend the money it takes to win.

To be fair, that argument would appear to hold water given that the team’s payroll has been in decline. It ignores the fact that Angelos offered nearly $200 million to Mark Teixeira and doled out $100 million to keep Brian Roberts and Nick Markakis in the fold, but no matter. We’ve learned the pattern from our friends on that side of the aisle and it’s a simple one. They believe that if the Orioles don’t spend wildly in the free agent market every year, they’re not trying to compete.

That’s yesterday’s news. What’s interesting about what Angelos said is that it tips his hand. He clearly believes that the system is in need of reform, and he certainly seems willing to advocate for it. I doubt it sits well in the commissioner’s office when an owner comes out and says that teams are buying their way into the World Series and that everyone needs to be close in the dollars they have available. It probably doesn’t sit well with the players union, either.

I’m agnostic on Angelos. I’m not a fan and I think he deserves most of the responsibility for the team’s downward spiral in the late 90s and early 00s, but I don’t hate the man. I think he’s done his share of good and that blaming him for everything is lazy.

What I can’t figure out is his motivation in making these comments. There’s no way the goal is to manage the fans’ expectations. If he wanted to do that he’d speak to local media and not to a relatively obscure columnist for mlb.com. Maybe it’s politics? Perhaps he’s making a push behind the scenes for reform and this interview is designed to send a message.

Most likely he’s just being honest, saying out loud what pretty much every owner (save for an obvious few) is thinking.

Whatever the reason, I wonder if he gave enough thought to his words before going public. Honest or not, it’s a safe bet that quite a few folks are less than pleased.

No, not current Orioles GM Andy MacPhail. Indeed, not even his esteemed father Lee.

For this one we reach all the way back to grandpa Larry MacPhail. That’s him in the picture, looking like a baseball executive should look but, alas, no longer does.

The eldest MacPhail was quite a figure. A critical force in the development of MLB, his direct influence touches many of the things the modern game takes for granted. Batting helmets, game broadcasts, night games, season tickets, and plane travel to name a few.

Away from the game he was, among many other things, part of a group that conspired to capture Kaiser Wilhelm during WWII. His was a remarkably full life.

He left a legacy of big ideas and erratic, tempestuous behavior. It’d be a ready-made Hollywood story if not for the fact that even Hollywood would likely find his life excessive and unbelievable. Leo Durocher — with whom MacPhail had a long and colorful relationship — may have put it best in this 1975 SI article:

There is no question in my mind that Larry was a genius. And very little question that he was also a little crazy. There is that thin line between genius and insanity, and in Larry’s case it was sometimes so thin that you could see him drifting back and forth. They always said this about MacPhail: cold sober he was brilliant; one drink and he was even more brilliant; two drinks and he began to fall apart.

But what’s this about “saving baseball”?

In 1958, ten years after he had left the game, Larry MacPhail looked at the baseball landscape and didn’t like what he saw. He worried about declining attendance, shoddy facilities, and (interestingly enough) the potentially negative influence of night games and TV broadcasting. He channelled his thoughts into an article for LIFE magazine that makes for a fascinating read.

To hear MacPhail tell it, baseball at that time was a few final heartbeats away from collapse. That seems silly in hindsight but if you boil down his arguments he was essentially saying this: that baseball must change because the country is changing.

In particular I’m struck by this line, spoken to Cubs president Phil Wrigley following a demonstraiton of TV broadcast technology:

Your club may someday be playing in private at Wrigley Field while fans in Ottumwa, Iowa and Kalamazoo, Michigan are paying 50¢ to watch it in a theater.

He failed to project the details, but his point was spot-on. Replace “50¢” with “$100/yr” and “theater” with “laptop” (or iPhone/iPad) and there it is.

Later, he warns of “the lack of equal competition” by saying (in part):

It has created a bad situation in the American League where clubs in small cities with limited drawing power, such as Kansas City, cannot hope to compete over the long pull with efficiently operated clubs in New York and Chicago.

Those words could appear in tomorrow’s paper and hardly seem out of place.

Reading through the piece got me thinking about the extraordinarily unique position baseball occupies in our hearts and minds. Substantively speaking it is the same game today as it was 50, 100 years ago. It isn’t, however, the same sport. The culture morphs and changes, and our expectations and needs change with it. Yet our basic desire for baseball remains, and baseball finds a way to meet the demand. It stays with us. It’s usually a few steps behind, sure, but it keeps pace.

I found an unexpected measure of comfort in reading Larry MacPhail’s words. His concerns were not so different from our own, valid then as they are now. Some of them have been resolved, some of them have not. There’s always work to do. Despite that, the collapse of which he warned never materialized. The game is troubled — was troubled — yet it endures. It always endures.

There’s a lesson in there if you’re inclined to go looking for it.

For more on Larry MacPhail check out this well-sourced writeup from sabr.org, which goes into great detail about his career and his life. It’s from there that I got most of the background info used in this post.

You guys have already covered this ably in the comments, but just so we’re on record: Dennis Sarfate is out to make room for Miggles, and Mark Hendrickson is coming back. Both of which, I think we’d agree, are solid moves.

The roster for 2010 now looks pretty well set in place. Barring injury or surprisingly poor performance there shouldn’t be any battles for starting spots. The most pressing issues (unless I’m missing something) will be the composition of the bullpen, the exact order of the rotation, and utility/backup infield.

More importantly, the Orioles will enter Spring Training for the first time in years with legitimate depth and stability. They’re mostly young but they’ve got proven veterans in key positions. Around the corner, a second wave of quality prospects waits to prove they’re ready.

Setting aside the projected win total for a moment, I’m pretty satisfied with where they stand. I’m excited that the debates this March won’t be “we don’t have a fifth starter, where will we find one?” but rather “which of these young starters will make the most progress?” It won’t be “which 4-A outfielder and/or washed up veteran will play in left?” but rather “is this going to be a breakout year for Nolan Reimold?”

I know I have to keep my enthusiasm in check, and for the most part I’m doing alright with that. But I’m excited for spring in ways that go beyond the normal anticipation. And I don’t think I’m deluding myself.

In order to be sure, though, I’m going to start a new project. As we lead up to and commence with Spring Training, I’m going to do a series of posts that take a look at the team position-by-position. Starting spots 1-9, starting pitchers, bullpen, and bench. 12 posts total. If everything goes according to plan I’ll start next week and do it periodically throughout the spring.

Start formulating your predictions and projections. I’m thinking 360 degrees here. On-field performance as well as less tangible aspects of development like leadership, personality, etc. Get stoked. The 2010 season is coming faster than you think.

I’m still conflicted about whether or not bringing back Miguel Tejada was the right move. I know — as I said before — that I don’t hate it. I’m still not sure if I like it.

Seems sensible to run down some pros and cons, right?

Pros
- Miggles can still hit. Bringing him in immediately improves the offense. That means both more runs scored and more protection in the lineup for the other hitters.

- He’s not blocking anybody. A one-year deal means that the Josh Bell plan is still in effect, provided the kid proves he’s ready. I’m not concerned about Atkins going to first and potentially taking at-bats away from Aubrey or Snyder. Or anybody else. Let those guys get some seasoning and prove their worth. If/when they do, that’s a good problem to have. In the meantime we have two legit (if unspectacular) veterans at the corners.

- The team seems to like him. For everything I’ve said about the atmosphere surrounding Tejada when he left, the only thing that matters is the clubhouse. If Trembley and the players welcome him back then who am I to contradict that?

Cons
- It’s strictly short-term. We have to hope Tejada makes a meaningful impact, otherwise this deal is a waste. That’s a big risk for a rebuilding team.

- He’s a wild card. Going back to what I said before: he left under bad circumstances. If he’s returning with full knowledge that he’s a role player and not a team leader, great. Color me skeptical on that. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt but I worry that he’ll become a problem at some point. It’d be silly to ignore that possibility, wouldn’t it?

- He’s switching positions. Nobody knows what kind of defense he’s going to play at 3B. I suspect it’ll be decent enough, but what if it’s not?

I think more than anything this move is interesting. It’s atypical for Andy MacPhail in that it involves higher risk than we’ve come to expect. Is this a sign that Phase Two is not only underway, but that the ground rules have been altered to accommodate a new reality? It seems that way. And if I’m right about that, it’s a good sign going forward.

Meanwhile, I’m warming up to the idea of Miggles at third. It could blow up in our faces, sure, but so what? Let’s win a few more games on the way there.

Somewhat surprising local media news: Anita Marks and 105.7 The Fan are parting ways.

According to the article, the two sides couldn’t come to a contract agreement. She’ll now take a month off to review her options.

I think it’s safe to say that most Baltimore sports fans won’t exactly be sad to see her go. Personally I was never a fan but I did think that the show she put on with Scott Garceau was generally entertaining. I liked their grumpy/ditzy dynamic.

Now that she’s gone I’ll share a story.

Back when the Rangers were considering trading Mark Teixeira and it looked like the O’s might have a shot, I posted a Q&A with a columnist from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I emailed the link to a bunch of local media types — including Anita Marks — in hopes that they might mention it and drive some traffic to the site.

Later that day I hopped in my car and dialed up ESPN 1300 just in time to hear her repeating my questions — practically word-for-word and in the same order as I asked them — to a different columnist from the same newspaper.

Good times.