What does it say about the state of the Mets’ pitching staff that they had to turn to a rookie making his major league debut (Carlos Muniz) in middle relief last night and now have to give Philip Humber his first major league start in the final week of a furious pennant race? The Mets’ bullpen has become so overworked that Willie Randolph went to Muniz as a replacement for struggling starter Tom Glavine. Muniz gave up two runs in an inning and a third, and those proved to be critical tallies in a 10-9 loss at Shea Stadium on Tuesday night…

Play-by-play man extraordinaire Gary Cohen provided a nice nugget of information on Monday night’s Mets broadcast. In referencing former Indians pitcher Jack Armstrong, Cohen discussed one of the right-hander’s best years, in which he pitched phenomenally well for the Reds over the first half of the season. (It must have been 1990, when Armstrong won a career-high 12 games and earned selection to the All-Star Game.) And then, as Cohen pointed out, Armstrong became full of himself. During a trip to New York, Armstrong decided to hang a sign in front of his locker at Shea Stadium. The sign read, "If you’d like to interview me, you’ll have to contact my agent first." What a putz. After that bit of haughtiness, Armstrong turned back into a pumpkin, endured a poor second half to the 1990 season, and never came close to being an effective pitcher again. Somehow, after hearing Cohen’s story, I don’t feel too sorry for Armstrong…

How desperate are the Padres for outfield help after that disastrous Sunday afternoon that essentially removed two-thirds of their starting outfield in Milton Bradley and Mike Cameron? Well, they decided to take a flyer on Jason Lane, who has been absolutely brutal for the Astros the last two seasons after being mildly productive in 2005. Other than an occasional home run, Lane offers little on offense—he doesn’t hit for average, doesn’t walk, doesn’t steal bases, and strikes out way too often. I also don’t know that he can play a serviceable center field. The Padres would be better off playing Brady Clark, Rob Mackowiak, or Terrmel Sledge in center field, bookended by Scott Hairston and Brian Giles. Hairston, by the way, has been one of the game’s best midseason pickups this summer. In 23 games for the Padres, he’s slugging at a .771 rate, with an on-base percentage of .418. And for what it’s worth, it looks like he could emerge as the best player in the expansive Hairston family, which has roots all the way back to the days of the Negro Leagues…

On a personal note, I’ll be a regularly featured guest each Tuesday morning on KBME, an all-sports radio station in Houston. Co-hosts Brad Davies and Craig Roberts will grill me each week during the postseason.

So where will Barry Bonds end up next spring, now that the Giants have decided to move in a different direction for 2008? Bonds’ lack of range in the outfield, coupled with the increased possibility of injury that comes with playing the field, make him a long shot to land with another National League team. So let’s assume that he heads to the American League for the first time in his career. In spite of what some skeptics say, the lowly Rangers appear to be one of the candidates. Owner Tom Hicks loves to make a big splash and can make room for Bonds at DH (where he belongs) by letting Sammy Sosa’s contract expire. Skeptics say that Bonds won’t want to play for a non-contender, but that didn’t stop him from playing for the Giants this summer. Another real possibility is the A’s, who have a general manager that appreciates Bonds’ full impact on an offense. Oakland needs a major jumpstart offensively; there is no other free agent hitter that comes close to carrying the resume of Bonds. Bonds would also prefer to remain on the West Coast, a condition that the A’s can obviously meet. Two other West Coast teams, the Angels and Mariners, are also rumored to have interest in Bonds, but some observers discount that possibility. The managers of those teams, Mike Scioscia and John McLaren, are both old-school baseball guys who would seem to have little interest in pandering to the wants and needs of Bonds, who will likely demand preferential treatment wherever he goes…

Forget all the weekend talk you heard about Alex Rodriguez signing a contract with the Cubs that contains a provision for future ownership with the club. Major league rules not only prevent active players from being part owners in a franchise, but also disallow teams and players from engaging in agreements that promise future ownership in the club. The Cubs might still pursue a more standard contract with A-Rod, but the Yankees and other teams will be looking closely to make sure there is no mention or provision for future ownership…

Speaking of the Yankees, the bending of the "Joba Rules" over the weekend figures to be a sign of things to come. Look for GM Brian Cashman to allow Joe Torre to use Joba Chamberlain on back-to-back days during the postseason, as long as he keeps his pitch count below 30. Cashman recognizes that Torre will need Chamberlain at full capacity if the Yankees are to return to the World Series for the first time since 2003.

We’ve been out business since last Wednesday because of the Labor Day holiday, so let’s make up for the lack of currency with lots and lots of volume…

Anyone who has read this space over the last two years knows I’m no fan of pitch counts, which have become overused to the point of nausea. Now I’m not calling for a return to those halcyon days when starting pitchers routinely threw 140 or more pitches. Yet, the pendulum has swung over so much to the side of caution that teams are losing games in the late innings because of a reliance on bad relievers without any discernible reduction in injuries to their starters.

Here’s my beef with pitch counts, which really should be described more accurately as pitch limits. Sabermetric types are forever stressing context in applying statistics—and rightly so—but context doesn’t seem to apply as vigorously to pitch counts. A guy hits 100—or 110 pitches—and the red flags go up, the sirens sound, and the pitch count preachers start chanting. Well, I have a few questions. I want to know if the pitcher labored in reaching100 pitches. What were the weather conditions, warm and humid or cool and comfortable? How were the pitcher’s mechanics that day, were they sound, or were they strained? How was he pitching at the tail end of those 100 pitches, as opposed to the first 40 pitches? Was he sailing through the batting order at the end of the 100 pitches, and if so, why did the manager take him out? Was it simply because the abacus turned from 99 to 100?

If baseball would use pitch counts as a guideline, while considering some of these other questions, I’d be much more open to considering the real validity and value of pitch counts. And I believe that pitching coaches and managers should be able to provide answers to these questions, in terms of a pitcher laboring, his mechanics, his strength at the end of the game. I mean, that’s what pitches coaches are paid for, at least in part, to detect these tendencies in their pitchers.

If pitch counts were used in such a way, as a guidepost, rather than as a hard and fast rule with absolutely no flexibility, I think teams would be extracting more quality from their starting pitchers. And maybe, just maybe, we’d see the return to something like the ten-man pitching staff…

Just a week ago, after the Mets had lost four straight games to the Phillies, we heard some ridiculous talk that Willie Randolph might be on the verge of losing his job. This angered me to no end, considering that Randolph has had the Mets in first place for virtually all of the past two seasons. He’s done this without a dominant starting rotation, and for much of this season, without much help from an aging Carlos Delgado or an oft-injured Moises Alou. Lo and behold, the Mets have won five straight games since the Philly fiasco, opened up a sizeable five-game lead in the National League East, and have quieted all the rumors of managerial change. Frankly, those rumors should never have started. It’s an insult to a fine manager like Randolph, who still finds ways to extract effort from veteran players and manage a scattershot bullpen while keeping the brushfires of controversy still at Shea Stadium…

My kingdom for an impact pitcher! What does it say about the state of available pitching when the best that contending teams can come up with over the last week are trades for Steve Trachsel (Cubs), Brett Tomko (Padres), and Ray King (Brewers)? None of the three has an ERA below four and a half, and all carry baggage (Trachsel has a reputation as a quitter, Tomko hasn’t pitched decently since 2004, and King weights 230 pounds, at least.) And what does it say that each of these three teams was actually excited about these acquisitions? Yeesh…

Last Saturday night, the White Sox slept walk their way through another defeat, but patient viewers who sat through till the end were treated to a video gem from the 1970 season. After the Sox’ latest loss to the Indians, WGN aired a tape of a hilarious exchange featuring Sox broadcaster Ken "Hawk" Harrelson. The tape, which was filmed in 1971, showed Harrelson and his then-Indians teammate Sam McDowell running through their own interpretation of Abbott and Costello’s "Who’s on First?" Harrelson and McDowell delivered the lengthy skit as if they were trained theater performers—flawlessly executing their lines while displaying the impeccable timing of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello themselves. Hawk and "Sudden Sam" even strayed from the original script from time to time, giving the performance a unique interpretation while also managing to poke fun at their own 1971 struggles. (Harrelson hit .191 in what was his final big league season, while McDowell went an uncharacteristic 13-17 and was traded to San Francisco.) It was wonderful theater, the kind that I’d love to see more local teams incorporate into their broadcasts. Just terrific.