Pad John McLaren's Office

When their teams can't win, even level-headed managers throw "the book" out the window and start trying anything. In other words, they lose they damn minds.

Such apparently is the state of John McLaren, who, with the Mariners needing a home run to tie yesterday's game, didn't pinch hit for Miguel Cairo.

On the bench was Richie Sexson, who, while slumping, had more career homers off of Tigers pitcher Todd Jones (three in eleven plate appearances) than Cairo had had since September of 2004 (two in 960 plate appearances).

If you don't like using Sexson, also sitting on the bench was Wladimir Balentien, who's had 62 professional homers (including 5 MLB ones) since Cairo hit his last dinger.

We've seen this madness before--in 2006, with the Mariners mired in a late-season swoon, Mike Hargrove batted Yuniesky Betancourt third for nine games.

In a situation when your team has the tying run at the plate, you pinch-hit with a power hitter. There's no other reason to have a power hitter on your bench.

Here's how McLaren explained his decision to Danny O'Neil of the Times: "I just think that Cairo has been swinging the bat pretty good and so forth and so on. So I would have stuck with Cairo."

"Swinging the bat pretty good" in this case meaning, as pointed out by several commenters, a .690 OPS on the homestand.

Cairo did actually hit the ball hard--a line drive right to Curtis Granderson. But that's almost the point--even if Cairo does hit the ball hard, he won't hit it out, which is what the Mariners need in that situation.

McLaren's quote is a little terrifying--what does "and so forth and so on" mean? And "I would have stuck with Cairo?" Are we in the conditional all of a sudden? McLaren DID stick with Cairo. Maybe he's having some sort of out-of-body experience.

Now the Angels are coming to town. Blue Monday anyone? Anyone?