Grumpy old men will grumpy. We can be grumpy, too.

Don't get us wrong on this. We're not trying to be ageist.

And truth be told, we're one of the grumpiest guys we know, and old (but certainly not wise) beyond our years. The other night, we nearly pulled all of our vertebrae out of whack just getting off the couch.

But seriously: Can we have a moratorium on "features" writers and goofballs from the "news" and "City" and "Life" sections of the newspapers stepping into the Rogers Centre like the hobbyists they are on a quote hunt to prove their thesis that the Jays are fucked and on their way out of town?

And this, folks, is where we really get grumpy. Those of us who went to journalism school know that from the moment you walk through the hallowed halls, the instructors blow all sorts of smoke up your ass about what a noble pursuit you are about to undertake, speaking truths to power and acting as an advocate and a voice for the People and to the People. Democracy and all that is good with the world depends on the eyes and words and honesty and truth of character that is found at the core of the journalist, and we must endeavour to use this power for the sake of humanity...

...And then, we'll just come up with horseshit theses off the top of our head, and go get three quotes that confirm them and call it a "feature". A story that really emphasized the "Dickensian Aspect".

Sorry...we're getting a little side-tracked here. This post was supposed to be about catchers and a bullpen that seems unable of getting men out, and somewhere along the line, it's turned into a screed over the ridiculous story written by the Star's Sandro Contenta. The article, wherein Mr. Contentedtofocusonthesurface found a bunch of curmudgeonly old dudes to complain about how expensive the tickets are, and how expensive the beer is, and how in Boston, you can get a hat and tickets on the Monster and a neckrub from Adrian Beltre for $29. ($28 with the new favourable exchange!)

(Stop me before I subreference again here...but are we the only ones who finds that Boston story a little weird? Especially considering that everyone we know who has gone to Fenway has paid a small fortune for just their seat, and generally not a great seat. It just doesn't smell right. If we were a reporter, we might even double-check a quote like that.)

And let's not forget the token former Expos fan, who always makes an appearance, as some sort of Ghost of Things Yet to Come...nevermind the fact that the situations are completely different, and that the Jays still get good TV and radio numbers and are relevant beyond a handful of diehards who had the endurance to put up with the chicanery of Claude Brochu and Jeffrey Loria. (Those boys were pretty hard core.)

And then there's Hayley Mick's piece in the Globe today, where she finds a bunch of other dudes who speak wistfully about paying $2 for tickets at the Ex. You know what else was $2 in the 70's? A house in Riverdale. (Actually, we didn't double-check that figure. Call it a guesstimate.)

The Globe article goes on to feature the traditional whining about the cost of stuff at the ballpark, as though the people there are all impoverished virgins who have never paid $10 for movie popcorn or $6 for a hotdog at Canada's Wonderland or $9 for a pint of beer at the James Joyce Pub in Calgary. Apparently, the Blue Jays are the only organization in the world that deems it necessary to charge $10 for a 24 oz. tasty beverage, and the outrage from that fact shall never dampen, never dim.

In fairness to Ms. Mick, she did manage to find a couple of younger dudes who don't have the locked-in nostalgia for the prices of times past, and are used to spending $50 on a t-shirt and $100 on a pair of jeans and who get the notion that $57 for a ticket to the ballgame isn't the most crushing disappointment that life has to offer.

Which isn't to say that we don't think that tickets are a little too expensive, and that there aren't things that the organization is going to have to do to stop the bleeding and make the experience a better one for everyone.

But let's just put a moratorium on the worst-case-scenario stories. There's a better story to be told here, about how the Jays papered over problems for much of the last decade with free tickets and deep discounts and giveaways, and that we've only started to see the crisis of consumer confidence in this product.

Crowds will be up come summer, and then these stories will fade a bit. But the underlying problems will exist, and it would be nice to see the real story written, rather than the blather that is being floated around now.

A fond farewell to the Globe's William Houston

In a time before we became devotees of Brunt or Blair or Neate or the Drunks or the Ghostrunners, the one sports column that we couldn't miss was William Houston's Truth and Rumours in the Globe and Mail.

It could have been the goofy-scratchy cartoons that accompanied the column in those days, but more likely, it was the fact that Houston's focus hit us exactly in the sweet spot of our twin obsessions with sports and media. We always thought that Houston had the coolest job in Canadian media, which isn't to say that it was a piece of cake to do what he did. If you are going to step up and deliver critiques of the sports media, you have to be pretty damned sure that your own work is spot on and beyond reproach, and Houston delivered the goods with each and every piece he wrote. (Even the ones the ones that he wrote multiple times, like his "Women in Sportscasting" piece that ran every 18 months or so.)

Houston's work was absolutely vital over the past decade, as the media lanscape evolved rapidly in Canada. With three national sports networks and a slew of digital channels coming online, not to mention the sports radio boom (and in the case of the Team network, the bust), an almost incalculable number of sports websites as well as the faltering fate of the once-promising satellite radio enterprises, Houston has scribed about sports media in the most interesting of times.

With the news coming this week (via Neate, via Cox Bloc, via the Fan 590's Howard Berger) that Houston has accepted a buy out and will leave the Globe effective February 1, we're more than a bit sad at the prospect of not having the opportunity to read his incredibly well-reported, insightful and witty views on Canada's sports media.

Because, you know, if Bill's not there, who the hell is going to keep watch on the number of times Martine Gaillard misuses the term "literally" in the run of a broadcast? Or to call Mike Toth to account for...well...being Mike Toth?

We're hopeful that Houston's will continue to grace us with his knowledge in some other capacity. (If you need someone to walk you through using blogging software, we're happy to volunteer our services, Mr. Houston). But we would also respect the fact that maybe the man just wants to shut off all of the TV's, radios and computers in his house and catch up on his reading for a while.

Whatever the case, we want to thank William Houston for sharing his talent and his hard work with us over these past few decades. We hope to see you again soon.

Taking issue with the Globe

You know how sometimes, when a team is looking to rebuild, or retool, or just needs to shake things up, you'll hear a General Manager announce that "nobody is untouchable"? I usually tend to agree, but there are always exceptions. For example, let's say you have a player at the peak of his career, at arguably the most important position on the roster, who is one of, if not the very best in the league at his job, who has pledged allegiance to the team, and who just might be the most popular player in franchise history. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, such a player exists. Well, that player would be the exception to the "nobody is untouchable" rule. You just don't trade Roy Halladay.

Now that I've stated my position, you can imagine the taste left in my mouth by browsing the sports section of the Globe this morning. Not one, but two articles (not so) subtly advocating just the opposite. First up, an article by my guy Jeff Blair.

Full disclosure - Blair is probably my favorite writer covering the Jays (even if, as it appears, baseball coverage is no longer Blairsy's full-time gig). You broke my heart with this quote this morning, Jeff:

".....general manager J.P. Ricciardi disagrees with those of us who don't think like television executives and who believe that the economy going down the sewer, coupled with the emergence of the Tampa Bay Rays and the economic and personnel clout of the usual suspects in the American League East, makes it a good time to gut the franchise and trade Roy Halladay for some package offering immediate and long-term help."

Blair's cohort Bobby MacLeod follows this up with an article of his own, with a few throwaway quotes from Doc's agent, and essentially re-re-re-rehashing the same tired quotes from the all-star break last season.

If I haven't made myself clear enough, here's my take: unless Roy approaches JP and says he wants out - or indicates he won't re-sign with the team when his contract expires after the 2010 season - there's no way trading Halladay should be part of the organizational blueprint. Roy Halladay is a once in a generation type of pitcher (excuse the hyperbole), by all indications loves playing for the team, and is, maybe above all else, exactly the type of person you want representing your franchise.

Roy Halladay is 31 years old. Roy Halladay is in the prime of his career. Even if 2009 turns out to be the shit year that everyone seems to be so sure the team will have.....you're expecting the team to stink for the next five or six seasons? Marcum, McGowan, Cecil, Litsch, Snider, Lind, Rios, and Hill have no chance at growing into the core of a contending ballclub? Trading Doc is the only way to get better? Disagree, friends. Dis - a - gree. So shut the fuck up about trading Doc, already.

This is why we should take the term "MVP" behind the barn and shoot it dead

In just about every North American team sport, the top individual award is annually given to the player judged most valuable to his team.

Which begs the question: what the fuck do you mean by "valuable"?

Of course, everybody has their own particular view on what valuable means to them, so the voting for these top awards ends up being imbued with all sorts of nonsense and bunk that ha come to be a regular part of the process: You need to play for a contender, but you can't have too many other good players on your team (otherwise, how valuabe are you really?); you can't be a DH; you shouldn't be a pitcher; you'd be a better bet if you play a "premium" position...

It's all bollocks. The only thing that maintaining this whole "MVP" meme does is keep corpulent intellectually lazy hacks in sports columnists jobs. And really, how much value do they add to your everyday life?

Nothing, though, quite takes the cake as much Robert McLeod's blog post espousing Marco Scutaro as the Jays' MVP. This is taking the whole concept of "valuable" to its most absurd extreme.

Was Scoots "valuable", in as much as he was able to step in and provide above-replacement-level offense and good-sometimes-great defense at multiple positions? No doubt. And way back in November of last year, when the Jays went out and snagged him from Oakland, we figured that his position flexibility would be his greatest asset.

But seriously. Come on. Be real. If you want to say that Scutaro was the team's Unsung Hero, who might not get the headlines but who was important to keeping the season afloat, then fine. But don't go telling me that he and his .695 OPS were the key to keeping the Jays in the race.

Don't even try to compare his offensive totals to Alex Rios. Or if you insist, allow us:

Rios: 46 2Bs, 15 HRs, 78 RsBI, 31 SBs and an .801 OPS in 150 games played.
Scutaro: 22 2Bs, 7 HRs, 58 RsBI, 7 SBs and the aforementioned .695 OPS in 140 games.

Moreover, if you want to look at defensive flexibility, don't overlook the "value" of Rios' moving to centrefield for 59 games this year, which was as important to the Jays' fortunes as Scutaro's forays at short, second and third.

It's not that we don't appreciate Scutaro. We just wish that people would stop trying to be so cute about this and float out these stupid theories.

Fuck the MVP. Let's just call it "Player of the Year", and be done with it.

(Mind you, if you want to discuss Rios vs. Halladay vs. Scott Downs for Player of the Year, we're listening.)