i am the commissioner of an espn auction fantasy baseball league. there are 11 teams and 1 team purchased about 7 closers and figured they would use them as assets in trades. that's a fine strategy depending on how much you paid for them and depending on whether or not you're going to get equal value especially when other teams know you want to get rid of a few of them.
so a couple of days ago i received the specifics of an accepted trade detailed here:
Team A (w/7 closers): gives 1) buster posey; 2) nick markakis; 3) brandon lyon
Team B (w/2 closers): gives 1) kurt suzuki; 2) curtis granderson
my first reaction was shock. as i do whenever i question the motives of the trading partners, i immediately contacted the manager of Team A. he proceeded to tell me that he thought granderson would produce and that his plan was to pick up jorge posada as his catcher to replace posey. if you look at espn's projections for 2011, his logic actually made sense.
one manager in particular was screaming bloody foul at this trade and demanded i veto the trade. but, it is not my duty to veto trades i disagree with but rather to protect against complete idiocy (like trading for an injured player) or collusion... this was neither (it was just plain old idiocy).
the bottom line is that managers are going to fall in love with particular players and there is no logic behind it. year after year people will overpay for the hot prospect or big name player who is 2 years removed from their career year. it's the nature of the fantasy beast.
in this case, Team A was willing to rid themselves of arguably the 2nd best catcher in baseball, a solid outfielder and a closer with a job for a yankee who can't hit lefties and bats in the 7/8 hole most nites. to make matters worse, jorge posada was picked up by another team ruining his plan anyway.
is this the worst trade i've ever seen? probably not, but if i'm going to trade away a valuable asset like a closer and a premiere young stud at a weak position i better be getting back a helluva lot more than a future platoon player.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
the smell test
i grew up going to mets games but really didn't become a fan of baseball until '95 when the 'iron man' saved baseball. he certainly did for me. then in '96 the yankees won the series and although i was/am not a yanks fan i am from new york so it brought baseball to the forefront. then in '98 i got pulled into the mcgwire/sosa hr chase and was hooked. the mets were finally competitive in '99 with their "best infield defense ever" and in '00 with their world series appearance. i read moneyball sometime in '04 and my love/interest/respect for baseball has grown exponentially ever since. fantasy and the rays have kept my interest level high even while my mets disappointment year after year.
i present my short history of fandom simply to say that i have not followed baseball closely for all that long. but in '95 when i started to become a true fan, manny ramirez had his first full season of abs for the cleveland indians. since then he's been an offensive force,with a career triple slash of 312/411/585. we don't need to go into his career accomplishments or shortcomings in great detail because others have done that with far greater success. i simply believe that based on the smell test (and i've been told i have the power of super smell - true) manny is one of the greatest hitters i have ever seen and is a clear hall of famer.
my list, off the top of my head, includes bonds, arod, chipper jones, pujols, and frank thomas as the most feared hitters in the league over the past 15 years. whether it was getting on base, driving in runs or hitting in the 'clutch' these players could do it all at the plate. you dont' need to be a sabermetric nerd or a jeter-intangibles nut to appreciate their value. it was never a question of whether they were great but of how great...and this is a sign of a hall of famer. when you start comparing players to jimmie foxx is there really a question of their candidacy?
i don't fault anyone who feels cheated by those caught using peds (i have neutral feelings) but i don't believe that the clear cut hall of famers (bonds, clemens) should be left out for suspicion or even failed drug tests. plenty of players used and never put up numbers like they have. players like manny were too good for too long to be simply dismissed as a ped enhanced cheater. for the rest of time i will think about manny and be reminded of his ferocious bat, disinterested look and 165 rbis in 1999 (the most since the aforementioned jimmie foxx in 1938).
Thursday, April 7, 2011
mlb predictions 2011
the red sox stand at 0-6 and were my preseason pick to win it all but no team has ever won the world series starting off this poorly so i must change my mind right? well, read on...
nl east: the phillies have the pitching to spare but what about their offense? i didn't buy it even before utley was likely done for the year. now, im certainly jumping ship on their offense. they are all on the wrong side of 30 and their only young stud (brown) is out for the next month at least. the braves are a solid team with breakout potential (heyward, hanson), veteran winners (chipper, hudson), youth (freeman, kimbrel), and old reliables (prado, uggla, mccann, lowe). the bet of the year was the phillies-under (97.5 when i looked) and i think both teams will be in the 94-win range.
i'll pick the braves simply because i think utley is out for the year (or ineffective).
nl central: a 4-team race between the reds, brewers, cards and cubs. i am not a fan of the reds pitching as much as some but their offense is legit. the wainwright injury hurts the cards but i won't say the pujols/carpenter/larussa cards are ever out of it. the cubs are a mess but if rob neyer is a believer then i'll give them a shot. my team of this group are the brewers...fielder is in his contract year and braun/weeks/hart are all very good on offense. their strength is in greinke/gallardo/marcum, the best rotation in the division when healthy. with no elite team in the division the brewers should be able top get healthy in time to win 91 and win the division by 2 games over the reds.
nl west: belt, belt, belt and the nl west will follow. i also predict the giants will make a trade for jose reyes at the deadline. posey might be the best player in the division already and has lincecum gone anywhere else? the rockies and dodgers are both solid teams but i think they cap out at 86 while the giants get to 92.
wildcard: phillies. or braves if the phillies win the nl east. always hedge.
al east: it's only 6 games and i'm not necessarily picking them to win the world series but they are the best team in baseball starters, relief, offense, defense. did they all just become untalented? doubtful. 97 wins and only because they play in the al east. this is a 105 win team in the al west.
al central: liriano is going to the yanks so goodbye 2011 twins. the tigers have verlander and miggy but no thanks. the white sox have a solid rotation, bullpen (love thornton/sale), and i love their offense. dunn is going to light it up. beckham and quentin will rebound a lot. konerko, alexei, rios should be solid. only 90 wins but plenty to get by in this division.
al west: why do people want to compare the a's to the giants of last year? because they both are pitching deep and offense light? well, i don't see a lincecum on their staff. i love brett anderson but cahill will regress a ton and gio will too a bit. their middle of the order is dejesus, willingham and barton. yikes. give me the rangers easy with their offensive firepower. no one in that division can hit with them and i think the rotation will be solid once again (cliff lee was not the dominant force for them last year as you might think). 94 wins in that division.
wildcard: yankees. with liriano in the fold they'll win 94 to be the 2nd best team in the al.
world series: yankees over giants. the bullpen dominates in the playoffs (joba, soriano, mo, feliciano)
nl mvp: buster posey. he's got the complete package and the most responsibilities on a contending team.
nl cy young: roy halladay. simply the best.
ny roy: craig kimbrel. 40 ks in 20 ip last year? doesn't seem to be slowing down either.
al mvp: adrian gonzalez. best player on the best team. i'm a believer in the early analyst favorite.
al cy young: felix has been groomed to be the best pitcher in baseball and he's almost there. he's still the best in the al.
al roy: jordan walden. now with the closer spot locked up voters won't be able to resist.
we'll check back in at the end of the year and see how my predictions stacked up.
my mets....
it's been a long time my friends (imaginary friends most likely). i'm looking back at my 2008 mlb 2nd half predictions and i ended up 7 of 8 for my division and wildcard winners. the only problem was that my one wrong prediction ended up being the world series champs.... and the bane of my baseball existence. i chose the mets to win the nl east and the brewers to win the wildcard. at least the brewers did their part and we know how the rest of the story worked out.
well, now it's 2011 and it's a whole other story - and by that i mean the mets won't be in 1st at any point this year. as i write this post, the mets just lost to the phillies 11-0 and stand at 3-3 while the phillies are 5-1. here goes my mets 2011 preview:
we gotta start at the top. i'm hoping that this whole madoff mess forces the wilpons to sell the team but i've been told repeatedly that this will not be happening. it doesn't mean anything if they sell just a minority stake because they own a larger piece of their team than most other owners in mlb. it seems as though they have kept their mouths shut this offseason and stopped with the micro managing. let's hope that this is a new trend.
next up, we have the brain trust of sandy alderson, jp riccardi, paul depodesta and john ricco (the only holdover from 2010). their titles are irrelevant because they are trying to mesh together all phases of the organization into a cohesive unit. john ricco is prob more involved in the business side of things, however. they all make a lot of money and there should be no reason this unit can't be one of the best in baseball.
terry collins seems like a straight shooter. i have nothing bad to say about him at this point, but it's all about winning and making smart decisions in the process. so, let's just say that we'll see what happens.
when it comes to the major league roster, i think the consensus is that their offense can be solid if they can avoid the injury bug that has haunted this unit in the past, while the pitching staff will probably have a hard time repeating their surprising numbers from last year.
bullpen: this unit has the most turnover but that's not really all that important. sandy has done a great job finding some decent options for cheap while also making sure that they were able to retain some depth in the organization after everyone seemingly cleared waivers.
starters: it's a bunch of 3/4 starters. pelfrey is no ace. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised to see him be the worst pitcher of the bunch this year. i'm a believer in dickey and niese should def continue to grow as a solid contributor. chris young is ok if healthy and capuano is fine as a #5. they have no upside so getting average production from the group will be fine with me.
offense: they can be a top 5 offense in the senior circuit, again, if avoiding the dl stints. reyes is in a contract year and is still just 28 with tons of tools. pagan is solid. wright is 28 and has regained his form. beltran has no more knees but he is in a contract year as well and wants to keep playing after this year. bay is on the dl again but will bounce back some at least this year. ike davis is legit - he should hit 20+ hrs. emaus/murphy are unknowns and i don't expect much, but thole is a solid #8 hitter and should be able to post above average obp with limited power. the bench has a solid mix of power and speed. paulino was a great signing (top 5 ba against lhp over the last few years).
defense: pagan and davis can both be gold glovers at cf and 1b, respectively. emaus and thole are both unknowns. as for the rest of them, they should be solid, if not spectacular.
minors: i'm a believer in fmart. i know he has arthritis at age 22 and he no longer can play cf, let alone a solid rf, but he's 22! his bat is quick and his power has come. obviously if you can't play you can't be good but why obsess over things like that. while we're at it, i'm also a believer in reese havens, the other 1st round pick from 2008 (along with ike davis), who finally moved from ss to 2b this past year but is always injured. he's opening the year on the dl once again after having part of his rib removed to help alleviate his oblique pain. we have some decent players in the minors but so do most teams. the mets have nothing that special.
prediction: a 500 team sounds nice right about now. best case scenario is that we stay healthy, stay productive and get santana back at the break. even then, i think the upside is 90 wins at best and an outside shot at the wildcard. worst case scenario is that we are injured, call up our not-so-great minor league backups, trade reyes at the deadline, trade beltran at the deadline (if he's even playing) and decide not to bring back santana bc, honestly, why would we? then we're a 70 win team at best and i'm not sure where we can go from here.
i believe in intelligence (and money). we have the 1st part down now that we've hired 3 smart former gms and we SHOULD have the 2nd part because we're the fucking new york mets.... but who knows what's going to happen with this madoff mess and until then the future looks suspect.
well, now it's 2011 and it's a whole other story - and by that i mean the mets won't be in 1st at any point this year. as i write this post, the mets just lost to the phillies 11-0 and stand at 3-3 while the phillies are 5-1. here goes my mets 2011 preview:
we gotta start at the top. i'm hoping that this whole madoff mess forces the wilpons to sell the team but i've been told repeatedly that this will not be happening. it doesn't mean anything if they sell just a minority stake because they own a larger piece of their team than most other owners in mlb. it seems as though they have kept their mouths shut this offseason and stopped with the micro managing. let's hope that this is a new trend.
next up, we have the brain trust of sandy alderson, jp riccardi, paul depodesta and john ricco (the only holdover from 2010). their titles are irrelevant because they are trying to mesh together all phases of the organization into a cohesive unit. john ricco is prob more involved in the business side of things, however. they all make a lot of money and there should be no reason this unit can't be one of the best in baseball.
terry collins seems like a straight shooter. i have nothing bad to say about him at this point, but it's all about winning and making smart decisions in the process. so, let's just say that we'll see what happens.
when it comes to the major league roster, i think the consensus is that their offense can be solid if they can avoid the injury bug that has haunted this unit in the past, while the pitching staff will probably have a hard time repeating their surprising numbers from last year.
bullpen: this unit has the most turnover but that's not really all that important. sandy has done a great job finding some decent options for cheap while also making sure that they were able to retain some depth in the organization after everyone seemingly cleared waivers.
starters: it's a bunch of 3/4 starters. pelfrey is no ace. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised to see him be the worst pitcher of the bunch this year. i'm a believer in dickey and niese should def continue to grow as a solid contributor. chris young is ok if healthy and capuano is fine as a #5. they have no upside so getting average production from the group will be fine with me.
offense: they can be a top 5 offense in the senior circuit, again, if avoiding the dl stints. reyes is in a contract year and is still just 28 with tons of tools. pagan is solid. wright is 28 and has regained his form. beltran has no more knees but he is in a contract year as well and wants to keep playing after this year. bay is on the dl again but will bounce back some at least this year. ike davis is legit - he should hit 20+ hrs. emaus/murphy are unknowns and i don't expect much, but thole is a solid #8 hitter and should be able to post above average obp with limited power. the bench has a solid mix of power and speed. paulino was a great signing (top 5 ba against lhp over the last few years).
defense: pagan and davis can both be gold glovers at cf and 1b, respectively. emaus and thole are both unknowns. as for the rest of them, they should be solid, if not spectacular.
minors: i'm a believer in fmart. i know he has arthritis at age 22 and he no longer can play cf, let alone a solid rf, but he's 22! his bat is quick and his power has come. obviously if you can't play you can't be good but why obsess over things like that. while we're at it, i'm also a believer in reese havens, the other 1st round pick from 2008 (along with ike davis), who finally moved from ss to 2b this past year but is always injured. he's opening the year on the dl once again after having part of his rib removed to help alleviate his oblique pain. we have some decent players in the minors but so do most teams. the mets have nothing that special.
prediction: a 500 team sounds nice right about now. best case scenario is that we stay healthy, stay productive and get santana back at the break. even then, i think the upside is 90 wins at best and an outside shot at the wildcard. worst case scenario is that we are injured, call up our not-so-great minor league backups, trade reyes at the deadline, trade beltran at the deadline (if he's even playing) and decide not to bring back santana bc, honestly, why would we? then we're a 70 win team at best and i'm not sure where we can go from here.
i believe in intelligence (and money). we have the 1st part down now that we've hired 3 smart former gms and we SHOULD have the 2nd part because we're the fucking new york mets.... but who knows what's going to happen with this madoff mess and until then the future looks suspect.
Friday, July 18, 2008
MLB SECOND HALF PREDICTIONS
the 08 midsummer classic was a thoroughly entertaining game, regardless of the problems it faced (ie running out of players). so now we're ready for the second half or the remaining 70 games or so. four games are already in the books and the mets have gone from 7.5 games back to tied for the nl east lead in a matter of a couple of weeks. i'll list my predictions for the rest of the season below:
American League:
East: Tampa Bay Rays - they have the starting pitching, the bullpen and defense to compete. even though they had a rough stretch right before the all-star break, they have more than enough prospects to make a move before the trade deadline for another bat to help their inconsistent offense. plus, they have the best minor league pitcher waiting to be this year's version of joba chamberlain (in david price). (runner-up, the red sox who with the injury concerns of ortiz and the likely regression of matsuzaka will fall a game or two short)
Central: Chicago White Sox - they have a 6.5 game lead over the only other team i can see winning the division (tigers). their offense is good and they have decent starting pitching. it really comes down to the fact that i don't have any faith in the twins and the tigers are too far back and need some serious pitching help. (runner-up, the tigers who will beat out the twins, but still trail the sox by about 5 games)
West: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim - their good record does not reflect their poor run differential, but they have the talent to overcome that in the second half. they also have some prospects in case they want to add a bat. the A's are selling off their parts and have played above their heads in the first half anyway. and the rangers are the rangers, with or without josh hamilton, at least for 2008. (runner-up, the athletics who have probably the deepest farm system in the majors after their trades of harden and blanton)
Wild-Card: Boston Red Sox - the team is too good and too deep to lose a 5 and 6 game lead over their two biggest threats, the A's and Yanks, respectively. the plethora of young pitchers will help their bullpen and starting pitching depth and the return of ortiz next week should be a big lift to the team, as long as he comes back healthy. now if only jason varitek didn't suck so much. (runner-up, the Yankees, who will miss the playoffs for the first time in god-knows-how-long; maybe the number of pastel Yankee caps will start their decline this year)
Playoffs: Red Sox over the Angels; Rays over the White Sox
AL Champ: Red Sox - their the best run organization in american team sports.
National League:
East: New York Mets - they have some holes, esp in corner outfield, but they have arguably the best starting pitching in baseball. they also have the win-now attitude to make a trade toward the deadline for a lethal leftfield bat (barry bonds anyone?). also, the marlins are not for real, the braves are in limbo and the phillies, regardless of joe blanton, have terrible starting pitching and no chips to trade for any sort of difference-maker. (runner-up, the phillies who have the offense to still win a bunch of games; the mets won't let their five game lead in september disappear this year)
Central: Chicago Cubs - they have the most complete team in the national league and with or without a healthy rich harden, they have a 5 game lead over the brewers. cc sabathia makes the brewers legit contenders, but enough to overcome a 5 game head-start? i wouldn't bet on it. (runner-up, the brewers, who now have the offense and starting pitching to win the world series)
West: Los Angeles Dodgers - the Dbacks were once considered the darlings of baseball, the young up and coming team, the next dynasty perhaps. it's somewhat apparent, however, that star prospects who don't show up in their first couple of years usually don't EVER live up to expectations (see Stephen Drew, Conor Jackson, Chris Young AND delmon young, alex gordon, et al). anyway, the dodgers have the talent, the balanced offense, starting pitching to win a terrible division (runner-up, the dbacks by default)
Wild-Card: Milwaukee Brewers - Ben Sheets and CC Sabathia and a stacked line-up. (runner-up, the phillies, whose fans should stop talking trash and think about how long it's been since they've even sniffed a championship)
Playoffs: Mets over Brewers; Cubs over Dodgers
NL Champ: the Mets (it's called loyalty in the Manuel-era)
WORLD SERIES: it's all about new york beating up on boston this year - METS OVER SOX IN 6
AL mvp: Ian Kinsler. I love Josh Hamiton also, but 150 runs? 100 rbis? 330/400/550 with 25 home runs and 45 stolen bases? WOW
AL cy young: Roy Halladay. He's the most consistent and least-pubbed pitchers in baseball... and maybe the best to boot.
NL mvp: does 305/395/540, with 30 hr/130 rbis/25 steals win the mvp this year? i think so, especially when that player is on a winning team: David Wright wins the mvp award he so deserved last year
NL cy young: Brandon Webb. he's got 13 wins. 22-6? with santana and peavy having sub-par seasons and injuries to other up and coming stars and the eventual decline of edinson volquez. it's his to lose.
American League:
East: Tampa Bay Rays - they have the starting pitching, the bullpen and defense to compete. even though they had a rough stretch right before the all-star break, they have more than enough prospects to make a move before the trade deadline for another bat to help their inconsistent offense. plus, they have the best minor league pitcher waiting to be this year's version of joba chamberlain (in david price). (runner-up, the red sox who with the injury concerns of ortiz and the likely regression of matsuzaka will fall a game or two short)
Central: Chicago White Sox - they have a 6.5 game lead over the only other team i can see winning the division (tigers). their offense is good and they have decent starting pitching. it really comes down to the fact that i don't have any faith in the twins and the tigers are too far back and need some serious pitching help. (runner-up, the tigers who will beat out the twins, but still trail the sox by about 5 games)
West: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim - their good record does not reflect their poor run differential, but they have the talent to overcome that in the second half. they also have some prospects in case they want to add a bat. the A's are selling off their parts and have played above their heads in the first half anyway. and the rangers are the rangers, with or without josh hamilton, at least for 2008. (runner-up, the athletics who have probably the deepest farm system in the majors after their trades of harden and blanton)
Wild-Card: Boston Red Sox - the team is too good and too deep to lose a 5 and 6 game lead over their two biggest threats, the A's and Yanks, respectively. the plethora of young pitchers will help their bullpen and starting pitching depth and the return of ortiz next week should be a big lift to the team, as long as he comes back healthy. now if only jason varitek didn't suck so much. (runner-up, the Yankees, who will miss the playoffs for the first time in god-knows-how-long; maybe the number of pastel Yankee caps will start their decline this year)
Playoffs: Red Sox over the Angels; Rays over the White Sox
AL Champ: Red Sox - their the best run organization in american team sports.
National League:
East: New York Mets - they have some holes, esp in corner outfield, but they have arguably the best starting pitching in baseball. they also have the win-now attitude to make a trade toward the deadline for a lethal leftfield bat (barry bonds anyone?). also, the marlins are not for real, the braves are in limbo and the phillies, regardless of joe blanton, have terrible starting pitching and no chips to trade for any sort of difference-maker. (runner-up, the phillies who have the offense to still win a bunch of games; the mets won't let their five game lead in september disappear this year)
Central: Chicago Cubs - they have the most complete team in the national league and with or without a healthy rich harden, they have a 5 game lead over the brewers. cc sabathia makes the brewers legit contenders, but enough to overcome a 5 game head-start? i wouldn't bet on it. (runner-up, the brewers, who now have the offense and starting pitching to win the world series)
West: Los Angeles Dodgers - the Dbacks were once considered the darlings of baseball, the young up and coming team, the next dynasty perhaps. it's somewhat apparent, however, that star prospects who don't show up in their first couple of years usually don't EVER live up to expectations (see Stephen Drew, Conor Jackson, Chris Young AND delmon young, alex gordon, et al). anyway, the dodgers have the talent, the balanced offense, starting pitching to win a terrible division (runner-up, the dbacks by default)
Wild-Card: Milwaukee Brewers - Ben Sheets and CC Sabathia and a stacked line-up. (runner-up, the phillies, whose fans should stop talking trash and think about how long it's been since they've even sniffed a championship)
Playoffs: Mets over Brewers; Cubs over Dodgers
NL Champ: the Mets (it's called loyalty in the Manuel-era)
WORLD SERIES: it's all about new york beating up on boston this year - METS OVER SOX IN 6
AL mvp: Ian Kinsler. I love Josh Hamiton also, but 150 runs? 100 rbis? 330/400/550 with 25 home runs and 45 stolen bases? WOW
AL cy young: Roy Halladay. He's the most consistent and least-pubbed pitchers in baseball... and maybe the best to boot.
NL mvp: does 305/395/540, with 30 hr/130 rbis/25 steals win the mvp this year? i think so, especially when that player is on a winning team: David Wright wins the mvp award he so deserved last year
NL cy young: Brandon Webb. he's got 13 wins. 22-6? with santana and peavy having sub-par seasons and injuries to other up and coming stars and the eventual decline of edinson volquez. it's his to lose.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
to sign or not to sign... BARRY BONDS
his name has been thrown around for the past week or so... as it was earlier this year. the dbacks were rumored to be interested just by saying that they were not not interested. i've heard the yankees and mets both rumored as well, at least by analysts, if not by team officials. i think this question is one of the more intriguing stories of the year thus far.
who is barry bonds? well, ped (performance enhancing drugs) use aside, he's arguably the greatest baseball player of all-time. he holds records in career homeruns, single season home runs, season on-base percentage, season slugging percentage, is about a career 300 hitter, has close to double digit gold gloves and hundreds of stolen bases, although the gold gloves and stolen bases are a thing of the past.
barry bonds is also a bad teammate, a clubhouse "cancer" and distraction, a widely accepted former steroid and growth hormone user, 43 years old, and incapable of playing defense with his bad knees. he was all of this last year as well, when he had an on-base percentage close to 500 and a slugging percentage close to 600. to put this in perspective, great players like a-rod, pujols, vlad, ortiz, etc. would be mvp candidates in any year where they had an obp of 400 and a slugging of 600.
so what's stopping teams from signing mr. bonds? that should be obvious enough to sports' fans, but are the arguments against bonds really strong enough to stop a gm from taking a chance? personally, i think not. and furthermore, i would love to see bonds play for a contending team... especially my own.
it's really a three-part question: first, is barry bonds able to continue his offensive prowess at the age of 43? second, even if barry bonds continues to be a stellar offensive player, do his defensive liabilities hurt your team more than his offensive power? and third, even if barry bonds is a productive baseball player, are his distractions in the clubhouse with the media worth the risk?
first, i see no reason why his offensive numbers would decline. he's gotten lots of rest and although maybe he's not in game-shape, he's shown to be a player that ages well (even post-steroid use). i would expect an obp of over 400 and a slugging percentage of over 500 at the very least.
second, it's obvious that he's best suited to be a dh for some american league team. playing leftfield lowers his value to a ballclub, not solely cuz of his defensive limitations but also because he probably wouldn't be able to play everyday or at least every inning.
third, this depends on the make-up of your team and also whether you believe that these distractions are really all that important to whether a team wins or loses.
if i were a contending team in the american league with a dh opportunity (rays, a's, possibly the tigers, yanks and sox) i'd jump all over this opportunity. the al is so stacked this year (and most years recently) that any advantage would be huge. you don't have to give up anything to get bonds (except money) and you can slot him in the dh spot without worrying too much about fatigue and dropped fly balls. you can talk as much as you want about distractions, but teams have always signed trouble-makers like sheffield and bradley or drug-users like mota and sosa and none of these players ever had the ability that bonds has.
if i were a team in the national league, i'd be a little more wary. however, i would still probably take a chance. teams are quick to take little risk, but in a sport where only four teams make the playoffs and it's essentially a crap-shoot when you get there, i'd push in my chips for a player like bonds, who could make all the difference. let's see if the mets would be a good fit.
the mets have two corner outfielders, in alou and church, who are both very productive players and who both may not play again this year. so should they sign bonds? well, everyone knows that in new york, this would be a gigantic story. and especially after the debacle that's been their first half, with the firing of willie and the constant criticism of this team, maybe the team would be better suited to avoid such a media blitz. i disagree.
the mets bench includes players like easley, tatis, chavez, anderson and some random guys we brought up from the minors... none of them will ever approach numbers like bonds'. if church and/or alou are out for the rest of the season then our options are either to play chavez/anderson/easley everyday or trade for someone like nady or dunn. well, still none of those players can match bonds' output.
the mets are a good fit for bonds because they don't have to play him all the time. chavez is a great defensive player who can come in for bonds late in games as a defensive sub. if alou and church or either or come back then you can always platoon bonds a little bit to keep him fresh. if the mets ever make it to the world series, bonds can be your dh option.
then what really matters is the issue of distractions. i'm of the opinion that distractions are overrated. the yankees won when they had lots of distractions in the 70s. bonds, himself, was on maybe good teams and made it to the world series with the giants. i'm not going to say that distractions have no influence b/c i'm sure they do, but who's to say what sort of influence they have... maybe certain distractions can be a good thing, like taking the spotlight off other problems and putting them on one player (like in this circumstance).
this is just my opinion of course and it's hard to say either way what would happen. but as it stands today, the mets are just a very good team in a not so good league where it seems that the two best teams, by far, are the cubs and brewers. the mets are no better (or worse) than the phillies, braves, cards, dodgers or any other contending team... esp without church and alou everyday. if the mets want to take the safer route and hope that church/alou come back, i can't fault them for that, but i'm a risk-taker and i think that with bonds, the mets are in a much better position to put themselves into the class of the cubs and brewers in terms of talent. the mets needs to move past last year's disappointment and signing the best player of the last 25 years would be one way of doing just that.
who is barry bonds? well, ped (performance enhancing drugs) use aside, he's arguably the greatest baseball player of all-time. he holds records in career homeruns, single season home runs, season on-base percentage, season slugging percentage, is about a career 300 hitter, has close to double digit gold gloves and hundreds of stolen bases, although the gold gloves and stolen bases are a thing of the past.
barry bonds is also a bad teammate, a clubhouse "cancer" and distraction, a widely accepted former steroid and growth hormone user, 43 years old, and incapable of playing defense with his bad knees. he was all of this last year as well, when he had an on-base percentage close to 500 and a slugging percentage close to 600. to put this in perspective, great players like a-rod, pujols, vlad, ortiz, etc. would be mvp candidates in any year where they had an obp of 400 and a slugging of 600.
so what's stopping teams from signing mr. bonds? that should be obvious enough to sports' fans, but are the arguments against bonds really strong enough to stop a gm from taking a chance? personally, i think not. and furthermore, i would love to see bonds play for a contending team... especially my own.
it's really a three-part question: first, is barry bonds able to continue his offensive prowess at the age of 43? second, even if barry bonds continues to be a stellar offensive player, do his defensive liabilities hurt your team more than his offensive power? and third, even if barry bonds is a productive baseball player, are his distractions in the clubhouse with the media worth the risk?
first, i see no reason why his offensive numbers would decline. he's gotten lots of rest and although maybe he's not in game-shape, he's shown to be a player that ages well (even post-steroid use). i would expect an obp of over 400 and a slugging percentage of over 500 at the very least.
second, it's obvious that he's best suited to be a dh for some american league team. playing leftfield lowers his value to a ballclub, not solely cuz of his defensive limitations but also because he probably wouldn't be able to play everyday or at least every inning.
third, this depends on the make-up of your team and also whether you believe that these distractions are really all that important to whether a team wins or loses.
if i were a contending team in the american league with a dh opportunity (rays, a's, possibly the tigers, yanks and sox) i'd jump all over this opportunity. the al is so stacked this year (and most years recently) that any advantage would be huge. you don't have to give up anything to get bonds (except money) and you can slot him in the dh spot without worrying too much about fatigue and dropped fly balls. you can talk as much as you want about distractions, but teams have always signed trouble-makers like sheffield and bradley or drug-users like mota and sosa and none of these players ever had the ability that bonds has.
if i were a team in the national league, i'd be a little more wary. however, i would still probably take a chance. teams are quick to take little risk, but in a sport where only four teams make the playoffs and it's essentially a crap-shoot when you get there, i'd push in my chips for a player like bonds, who could make all the difference. let's see if the mets would be a good fit.
the mets have two corner outfielders, in alou and church, who are both very productive players and who both may not play again this year. so should they sign bonds? well, everyone knows that in new york, this would be a gigantic story. and especially after the debacle that's been their first half, with the firing of willie and the constant criticism of this team, maybe the team would be better suited to avoid such a media blitz. i disagree.
the mets bench includes players like easley, tatis, chavez, anderson and some random guys we brought up from the minors... none of them will ever approach numbers like bonds'. if church and/or alou are out for the rest of the season then our options are either to play chavez/anderson/easley everyday or trade for someone like nady or dunn. well, still none of those players can match bonds' output.
the mets are a good fit for bonds because they don't have to play him all the time. chavez is a great defensive player who can come in for bonds late in games as a defensive sub. if alou and church or either or come back then you can always platoon bonds a little bit to keep him fresh. if the mets ever make it to the world series, bonds can be your dh option.
then what really matters is the issue of distractions. i'm of the opinion that distractions are overrated. the yankees won when they had lots of distractions in the 70s. bonds, himself, was on maybe good teams and made it to the world series with the giants. i'm not going to say that distractions have no influence b/c i'm sure they do, but who's to say what sort of influence they have... maybe certain distractions can be a good thing, like taking the spotlight off other problems and putting them on one player (like in this circumstance).
this is just my opinion of course and it's hard to say either way what would happen. but as it stands today, the mets are just a very good team in a not so good league where it seems that the two best teams, by far, are the cubs and brewers. the mets are no better (or worse) than the phillies, braves, cards, dodgers or any other contending team... esp without church and alou everyday. if the mets want to take the safer route and hope that church/alou come back, i can't fault them for that, but i'm a risk-taker and i think that with bonds, the mets are in a much better position to put themselves into the class of the cubs and brewers in terms of talent. the mets needs to move past last year's disappointment and signing the best player of the last 25 years would be one way of doing just that.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
joe morgan versus howard cosell
on mike and mike this morning i heard an audio clip from curt schilling where he said that he doesn't care about getting into the hall of fame because he doesn't care what people who never played the game think about his career.
who gets into the hall of fame is determined by the baseball writers of america. i would say it's safe to assume that most, if not all of these writers have never played baseball, at least on the major league level. that being said, i wonder about schilling's comments. i feel as though this is a common sentiment in general about writers, although i doubt if players don't care about getting into the hall of fame or receiving any other accolades that writers can bestow upon them.
his comments bring up two sentiments i've heard over the years. the first one that comes to mind is joe morgan's comments about sabermetric geeks or statisticians and how easily he dismisses their kind, once alleging that billy beane himself ghostwrote moneyball. the basic point was that these people have never played the game and thus do not understand what truly makes a great ballplayer. this job should be left to scouts and those who have an intrinsic knowledge of the nuances of the sport.
well, although i don't completely disagree with this concept, i do think that it is overblown. are there things that statisticians can't or at least don't understand? i'm sure. but, as a counter-point i'm sure that there are things that they are not blinded by as well. for example, scouts or people who once played the game can easily be shaped by their own experiences which leads them to see other players with a bias towards their own positive and/or negative attributes. statisticians, on the other hand, use mostly neutral numbers to come to their conclusions, although these numbers may tell an incomplete story.
howard cosell, on the other hand, used to talk about the skills necessary to be a sports reporter, announcer, etc. he would say that being a former athlete does not necessarily give you the gift to be able to dissect the game or speak intelligently about it. his points are of a little different substance than schilling's or morgan's, but there is some comparisons that can be made. i think he was obviously speaking to some extent about journalistic skill and oratory skill. but, at the same time, he was making a point that being able to comment on something is vastly different than being able to do something.
disliking critics is commonplace. for the most part, they are there to tear down. and although i agree that those who do not enter the arena shouldn't blast those that do, it doesn't mean that they are wrong with their opinions when they do, especially when those opinions are based on something concrete (like baseball stats). you don't have to be picasso to appreciate his art nor do you have to be scorsese to say that ed wood films are terrible (yet hilarious at the same time).
schilling is saying that he doesn't care what the baseball writers say about him and that's cool. i don't think he should care. but underlying those comments is a concept that i firmly stand against. moreover, i wonder whether schilling would care more about the writers if his entrance into the hall were more guaranteed than it is (i would say he's borderline, closer to in than out). it's easy to dismiss other's opinions when your fearful that they are negative... and easy to accept them when they are receptive.
who gets into the hall of fame is determined by the baseball writers of america. i would say it's safe to assume that most, if not all of these writers have never played baseball, at least on the major league level. that being said, i wonder about schilling's comments. i feel as though this is a common sentiment in general about writers, although i doubt if players don't care about getting into the hall of fame or receiving any other accolades that writers can bestow upon them.
his comments bring up two sentiments i've heard over the years. the first one that comes to mind is joe morgan's comments about sabermetric geeks or statisticians and how easily he dismisses their kind, once alleging that billy beane himself ghostwrote moneyball. the basic point was that these people have never played the game and thus do not understand what truly makes a great ballplayer. this job should be left to scouts and those who have an intrinsic knowledge of the nuances of the sport.
well, although i don't completely disagree with this concept, i do think that it is overblown. are there things that statisticians can't or at least don't understand? i'm sure. but, as a counter-point i'm sure that there are things that they are not blinded by as well. for example, scouts or people who once played the game can easily be shaped by their own experiences which leads them to see other players with a bias towards their own positive and/or negative attributes. statisticians, on the other hand, use mostly neutral numbers to come to their conclusions, although these numbers may tell an incomplete story.
howard cosell, on the other hand, used to talk about the skills necessary to be a sports reporter, announcer, etc. he would say that being a former athlete does not necessarily give you the gift to be able to dissect the game or speak intelligently about it. his points are of a little different substance than schilling's or morgan's, but there is some comparisons that can be made. i think he was obviously speaking to some extent about journalistic skill and oratory skill. but, at the same time, he was making a point that being able to comment on something is vastly different than being able to do something.
disliking critics is commonplace. for the most part, they are there to tear down. and although i agree that those who do not enter the arena shouldn't blast those that do, it doesn't mean that they are wrong with their opinions when they do, especially when those opinions are based on something concrete (like baseball stats). you don't have to be picasso to appreciate his art nor do you have to be scorsese to say that ed wood films are terrible (yet hilarious at the same time).
schilling is saying that he doesn't care what the baseball writers say about him and that's cool. i don't think he should care. but underlying those comments is a concept that i firmly stand against. moreover, i wonder whether schilling would care more about the writers if his entrance into the hall were more guaranteed than it is (i would say he's borderline, closer to in than out). it's easy to dismiss other's opinions when your fearful that they are negative... and easy to accept them when they are receptive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
