Kyle Farnsworth: You Spoke the Truth, Now Expect a Trade

Kyle Farnsworth publicly criticized Roger Clemens' "family plan" clause yesterday, and that can only mean one thing.

He wants to be traded.

Farnsworth was absolutely, positively correct in his criticism of Clemens' special treatment. No one else on the team goes home between games, so why should Roger?

Fair or not, though, the Yankees' $20 million plus on the table makes it pretty easy to figure out who they'll side with if things get ugly between Clemens and Farnsworth.

So Kyle, if you wanted to retire a Yankee, you just made a big mistake. But if your bags are packed and you're already researching hotspots in Pittsburgh, speaking the truth about Roger was just the right move.

Horry Smirks as Stoudemire and Diaw Sit

The NBA has been acting like a bad parent this season, starting with mismanagement of Kobe Bryant's "flagrant flails" and now escalating with the suspension of Amare Stoudemire and Boris Diaw for coming off the bench in the Robert Horry-Steve Nash incident.

That Cheap Shot Bob received a two-game suspension doesn't matter, because for the pivotal Game 5 of the Western Conference semifinals, the Suns will be without their leading scorer and an invaluable sixth man.

Officially, the judgment was fair. The players came off the bench during a potential altercation, and they received in turn the punishment that league rules stipulate.

But in reality, the league's ruling bites. The NBA is acting like an impetuous parent who wants to be equitable but has no grasp on the concept of fairness.

Imagine for a moment two young brother get angry at each other, and one throws a punch. The second punches back. To punish the boys, the parents announce they are taking away the Legos for a week, because that's what always happens when the boys fight.

The problem is, the first kid -- the one who thre the initial punch -- could care less. He doesn't even like Legos, so the punishment is meaningless.

Of course, this is an imperfect analogy, but as Dilbert creator Scott Adams says, that's what makes it an analogy.

The point is, when the most important game of the series is played tonight, the Suns will be the second child, toiling away without their favorite toy -- or in this case, two of their best players. The Spurs and Robert Horry, meanwhile, will be the first child, reveling in the "fairness" of the punishment.

The league has made a ghastly mistake here, and I recommend that Stu Jackson be grounded for at least two weeks.

Which Type is Your Franchise?

There are two prevailing philosophies that dominate front offices across Major League Baseball.

On the one side, you've got teams who are convinced every year that this could be "the year." This leads to a very predictable pattern of decision-making.

First, these franchises tend to be very active around the trading deadline, gladly swapping two or three good (or even great) prospects for a #5 starting pitcher. These moves are made even when the club is fighting only for the Wild Card and a first-round exit in the playoffs. Such franchises also sign free agents, and lots of them, to fill perceived gaps in thier rosters.

The upside is that franchises that throw their lots in with Philosophy 1 usually compete for their respective division titles or the Wild Card, and they sometimes make a legitimate run at (or win) the World Series.

The downside is that prospects and money are not renewable resources; after a certain amount of time, the franchise is out of top prospects to trade and has a limited budget to piece together a team in the free agent market.

On the other end of the spectrum are franchises that are dedicated to growing talent from within.

Typically, these are the teams that are trading away the players that are free agents-to be in exchange for two or three prospects. These teams often don't have the money to bring in the big name free agents, but that's not always the case.

The downside to these franchises is they sometimes go through long rebuilding phases. At times, they are also accused of not caring because they don't "do what it takes" to win.

But the upside is tremendous. Teams that give prospects a chance to succeed (or fail) at the big league level often reap fantastic dividends. They get several years of good baseball out of their prospects at a relatively cheap price before the prospects are eligible for free agency. If they can't resign their young prospects, Philosophy 2 franchises simply trade them away and get two or three prospects in return and start the process over.

****

It's probably time to admit that I don't care much for free agency. It makes the players greedy and it means that any given athlete may play on four or five different franchises during his career. That stinks, and it makes rivalries difficult to sustain (wasn't he on our team last year?).

But I digress. Free agency is here to stay, and the two franchise philosophies described above will dominate the league for years to come. Which type is your franchise?