Derek ( WV ): Joe, what in your opinion is the best story so far in this MLB season thats not a story of controversy? Basically, what's your favorite positive story so far this year? Something that promotes the good things this game brings, instead of focusing on all the bad as we all seem to do.

I'm glad you don't focus on the negative .. THAT'S not good for the game. There are a lot of good stories. The Royals have been at the bottom for so long and they are now fighting for the AL Central. They have bounced back after losing some games and they look strong. Also, the Cubs. They have been down for so long and now there is some real excitement around that club with Dusty Baker. To me, Roger Clemens getting his 300th win, we may never see that again.

[Mike: "Oh, dear, we don't like any of that controversy. Oh, yah."

As a Phils fan, I say f' the Royals being down for so long. They won a World Series in 1985.

The Cubs have been down? They made the playoffs in 1998, thereby justifying the ridiculous MVP snubbing of Mark McGwire. Also, they were in the hunt in 2001 though they finished third, 5 games back.

So always look on the bright side of death!
Just before you draw your terminal breath.
Life's a piece of sh*t,
When you look at it.]

Rob (NC): Mr. Morgan: You just said: "I'm glad you don't focus on the negative .. THAT'S not good for the game." I couldn't agree more, and we need more people in and around baseball thinking this way. Incidentally, I think you misinterpreted the Juan Gonzalez question. Justin was asking if Gonzalez VETOING the trade is bad for the game. I don't think it is, but that's what he was asking.

Players do have no-trade contacts. That's part of their contract. In the past, guys got sent to places as punishment. That's why agents came up with that part of a contract. There is a 10/5 rule, if you are in the league for 10 years, five years consecutive with the same team, you can veto. I don't think it's bad for the game because everyone has adjusted to it and realize it's in the contract. Sometimes you get to a city and all of a sudden you have to uproot your family and move 2,000 miles. I'm not sure that's fair.

[Mike: "In the past, guys got sent to places as punishment." Yeah, that was under commissioner Stalin.

I believe that the 10-5 rule was something that the players collectively bargained for according to Marvin Miller's autobiography. The agents had little to do with it.

Actually, I just Doug Pappas' site and 10-5 contracts were added in 1973.

"Sometimes you get to a city and all of a sudden you have to uproot your family and move 2,000 miles. I'm not sure that's fair." If you are a 10-5 player, how did you just "get to a city"?]

Justin (Oklahoma City): Sorry for the confusion Joe. What I meant when I said it doesn't seem good for the game is that when a small-market team like Montreal is in a pennant race and is turned down when trying to bolster their lineup,it is disappointing. I guess what is not good for the game is these people that ask for and receive no trade clauses. Texas gets no pitching prospects, Montreal doesn't get the slugger it needs for its pennant run. Now you see what I am saying? Thanks Joe. You are the best.

I understand your dilemma now. I would like for Montreal to get him as well. This is one of the problems with a small market. Again, I can't go against the rules of the game. The rules say he can veto. The team that give him the no-trade contract are the problem. The players can use that as leverage. I'm sure Juan wants a new contract before he goes anywhere and he doesn't have that contract right now. I do see what you are saying and I wish they could get him as well.

I'm glad to see you are concerned about small markets. Most people only care about the big markets.

[Mike: Cleveland didn't give him the no-trade contract. He earned it as a 10-5 player.

Again, don't cry for Montreal, Argentina. He wouldn't last there longer than Cliff Floyd's 15 games with 'Spos in 2002.]

Bryan (St. Louis): Joe, I beg to differ on your opinion about players uprooting their families. I am in the military and have to "uproot" my family every 3 or 4 years so that I can serve my country in another location, yet I make about 25K a year. These guys get paid 25K an at bat, and it's not fair for THEM to have to move?

There is a big difference between serving your country and playing baseball. I do see your point. Uprooting a family is not good whether it's in baseball or everyday life. Having to move to a new area is not always good. I've been through it and it's just not always great for family life. But it's part of the price you play whether you play baseball or are in the military. But at some point, you should earn the right to not be moved against your will.

[Mike: "Pick up service. Pick up challlenge. Set yourself apart"? For 25K? Ouch! Bryan, speaking for all red-blooded, draft-age American males, I thank you.

Maybe their talents are a bit more in demand than yours. Therefore, they can demand that their family not be uprooted under some circumstances. Don't be bitter.

By the way, after the 2002 season there were fewer than 50 10-5 men. A great deal of them have been released or left as free agents since 2002. I would post them if Blogger would not cough on them but you'll have to trust me on this.]