Thanksgiving Day was one of those days when you experience the irony of some people's arguments.
As I trolled newspapers across the country, and read text messages from friends throughout the day, I noticed the utter irony in people's complaints that the Detroit Lions were playing on Thanksgiving Day.
The Lions, now 0-12 after getting trounced by the Titans yesterday, are one of those teams people would rather not watch. But I found it ironic that on Thanksgiving -- a day in which us Americans are supposed to give thanks for what we have in our lives -- people would complain about a trivial topic like which football team they had to watch on TV.
Isn't it enough for people to just have a house to live in, a couch to sit on and a TV on which to watch a game? Are we so spoiled with our lives that in the midst of our country's economic turmoil, at a time when many Americans are losing their homes (and others in Iraq and Afghanistan are losing their lives), that we have to complain about which friggin' football team we get to watch?
More to the point, why don't we just stay thankful that the NFL is not embroiled in a labor dispute -- something that we might not be able to say in two years with the owners currently opting out of their collective bargaining agreement with the players -- and that we are privleged enough to spend our time stuffing our faces with food and watching a football game in the warmth and privacy of our homes?
Friday, November 28, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Pujols wins
He has a funny-sounding last name, but Albert Pujols is a damn good baseball player. He won his second MVP today, and deservedly so. A buddy asked me if Pujols should have won the award. There is discussion from time to time of whether players on non-playoff teams should be considered. Of course, the answer is YES!
It seems that in leagues like the NBA, a player must be on a top two or three team in his conference to get serious consideration. In MLB, a player can win it even if his team finishes fourth in their division.
Pujols has MVP-like numbers (.357/.462/.653, 44 2B, 37 HR, 116 RBI), and along with his truly outstanding defense, it is easy to make the case that Pujols was more valuable to the Cardinals' 86 wins than Ryan Howard (the second-place finisher) was to the Phillies' 92 wins and World Series crown.
Let's just hope Pujols heals correctly from elbow surgery this off-season and is back in the St. Louis lineup on Opening Day.
It seems that in leagues like the NBA, a player must be on a top two or three team in his conference to get serious consideration. In MLB, a player can win it even if his team finishes fourth in their division.
Pujols has MVP-like numbers (.357/.462/.653, 44 2B, 37 HR, 116 RBI), and along with his truly outstanding defense, it is easy to make the case that Pujols was more valuable to the Cardinals' 86 wins than Ryan Howard (the second-place finisher) was to the Phillies' 92 wins and World Series crown.
Let's just hope Pujols heals correctly from elbow surgery this off-season and is back in the St. Louis lineup on Opening Day.
Yanks overbid? Say it ain't so
Let's all welcome Doug Melvin to the modern world. The general manager of the Milwaukee Brewers stated last week that the Yankees were "overbidding" in their attempt to sign free agent starting pitcher CC Sabathia. Right, because it is so out of the ordinary for the Yankees to overbid on players.
Melvin obviously is invested in Sabathia's free agent negotiations since Melvin himself presented Sabathia with his first contract offer this off-season: a five year deal totaling $100 million, some major cheddar from a mid-market team in Wisconsin. But Melvin doesn't understand why the Yanks don't offer Sabathia just $110 million, instead of the reported $140 million or so they did offer. Who's the cheesehead now?
Firstly, why is Melvin surprised that the Yanks offered Sabathia so much more money? The franchise has spent gobs of money on free agents during the George Steinbrenner Era, dating back to the late 70s. It was widely reported that the Yanks would offer Sabathia a contract 30 to 40 percent higher than any other team. If the $140 million is true, then that would represent a 40 percent increase over the Brewers' offer, the only other official contract on the table.
Secondly, Sabathia has stated he has two glaring preferences: to stay in the National League (where he can hit, and, presumably, face lighter-hitting offenses), and to play in California. Considering the Yanks play in the American League and along the East Coast, there has to be something else they can offer which make up for their not meeting the lefty's two preferences. In their case, it's to bring an extra briefcase of money to the table. Money talks, the Yanks have lots of it and why should they be ashamed?
To suggest that they should offer Sabathia just $10 million more than the Brewers is an ignorant and almost amateurish way of looking at the situation. Nobody will confuse Melvin with the word "savvy." If he's frustrated that the Yanks can offer so much more money than his team, well, join the club. That's why the Red Sox owners labeled the Yanks the Evil Empire.
But the Yankees are doing what they have to do to stay in negotiations with a player whom they want. Now maybe Melvin is just trying to play mind games with the Bombers. It's difficult to fathom a MLB general manager truly feeling surprised that the Yanks, the richest team in American sports, would spend more money than other teams to get the player they want. That's how the world works, and a man who is glued in to the infrastructure of MLB should've seen this offer coming from a mile away.
Melvin obviously is invested in Sabathia's free agent negotiations since Melvin himself presented Sabathia with his first contract offer this off-season: a five year deal totaling $100 million, some major cheddar from a mid-market team in Wisconsin. But Melvin doesn't understand why the Yanks don't offer Sabathia just $110 million, instead of the reported $140 million or so they did offer. Who's the cheesehead now?
Firstly, why is Melvin surprised that the Yanks offered Sabathia so much more money? The franchise has spent gobs of money on free agents during the George Steinbrenner Era, dating back to the late 70s. It was widely reported that the Yanks would offer Sabathia a contract 30 to 40 percent higher than any other team. If the $140 million is true, then that would represent a 40 percent increase over the Brewers' offer, the only other official contract on the table.
Secondly, Sabathia has stated he has two glaring preferences: to stay in the National League (where he can hit, and, presumably, face lighter-hitting offenses), and to play in California. Considering the Yanks play in the American League and along the East Coast, there has to be something else they can offer which make up for their not meeting the lefty's two preferences. In their case, it's to bring an extra briefcase of money to the table. Money talks, the Yanks have lots of it and why should they be ashamed?
To suggest that they should offer Sabathia just $10 million more than the Brewers is an ignorant and almost amateurish way of looking at the situation. Nobody will confuse Melvin with the word "savvy." If he's frustrated that the Yanks can offer so much more money than his team, well, join the club. That's why the Red Sox owners labeled the Yanks the Evil Empire.
But the Yankees are doing what they have to do to stay in negotiations with a player whom they want. Now maybe Melvin is just trying to play mind games with the Bombers. It's difficult to fathom a MLB general manager truly feeling surprised that the Yanks, the richest team in American sports, would spend more money than other teams to get the player they want. That's how the world works, and a man who is glued in to the infrastructure of MLB should've seen this offer coming from a mile away.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
MLB awards too late for my taste
If you haven't noticed, Major League Baseball is rolling out its big season awards this week. Rookies of the Year, Cy Youngs, Coaches of the Year...it's all leading up to the Most Valuable Players (obviously, each award has an National League and American League participant).
But my question is, do sports fans really care about end-of-season MLB awards this deep into the fall? Would it hurt MLB to push up its end-of-season awards up to the first round of the playoffs?
The NBA announces its big regular season awards during the first round of its playoffs. The NFL does the same in the week preceding its postseason. Why must MLB wait until two weeks after its postseason to announce its regular season award winners?
MLB could argue that fans are as locked in as ever into the sport now that the offseason trades and free-agent signings are beginning to ramp up, especially with the Winter Meetings slated for the second week of December. But the problem there is offseason moves encourage fans to look toward next season.
By mixing regular season award winners in the same time period that teams are beginning to frantically -- and in some cases, drastically -- reshuffle their rosters, MLB fans are caught between shifting their thoughts back and forth between the 2008 and 2009 seasons.
If MLB were to announce its regular season winners during the first-round Wild Card series, fans would enjoy the benefit of having the regular season fresh in their minds. That might make Evan Longoria's Rookie of the Year award seem more acceptable than it does now, two weeks after he went 1-for-20 (.050) with one RBI in the World Series.
Fans don't care less about the MLB MVP, an award endlessly debated in the NBA and NFL, for two reasons: 1) there are two MLB MVPS, one for each league, which is a rule that should be eliminated to make room for one overall winner, and 2) most sports fans are spending their valuable time tracking the NBA, NFL, college football and the impending college basketball seasons.
Considering that MLB, like every other major sports league, caters itself to casual fans (they already know they'll reel in the die-hard fans at any time), it might serve the league better to announce its regular season winners while most fans can still remember the season.
But my question is, do sports fans really care about end-of-season MLB awards this deep into the fall? Would it hurt MLB to push up its end-of-season awards up to the first round of the playoffs?
The NBA announces its big regular season awards during the first round of its playoffs. The NFL does the same in the week preceding its postseason. Why must MLB wait until two weeks after its postseason to announce its regular season award winners?
MLB could argue that fans are as locked in as ever into the sport now that the offseason trades and free-agent signings are beginning to ramp up, especially with the Winter Meetings slated for the second week of December. But the problem there is offseason moves encourage fans to look toward next season.
By mixing regular season award winners in the same time period that teams are beginning to frantically -- and in some cases, drastically -- reshuffle their rosters, MLB fans are caught between shifting their thoughts back and forth between the 2008 and 2009 seasons.
If MLB were to announce its regular season winners during the first-round Wild Card series, fans would enjoy the benefit of having the regular season fresh in their minds. That might make Evan Longoria's Rookie of the Year award seem more acceptable than it does now, two weeks after he went 1-for-20 (.050) with one RBI in the World Series.
Fans don't care less about the MLB MVP, an award endlessly debated in the NBA and NFL, for two reasons: 1) there are two MLB MVPS, one for each league, which is a rule that should be eliminated to make room for one overall winner, and 2) most sports fans are spending their valuable time tracking the NBA, NFL, college football and the impending college basketball seasons.
Considering that MLB, like every other major sports league, caters itself to casual fans (they already know they'll reel in the die-hard fans at any time), it might serve the league better to announce its regular season winners while most fans can still remember the season.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Giants should sign CC
Buster Olney was dead-on in his blog post yesterday: The Giants should think very strongly about signing CC Sabathia.
Barry Zito's awful $126 million contract aside, the Giants are a team with no identity. You could make the case that Tim Lincecum is talented enough to be the face of the franchise, but he doesn't seem to carry the charisma to be The Man.
The Giants are a team lacking offense, but their youthful pitching staff is envied around the league. Lincecum, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez have all experienced different levels of success, and they have appear to have very bright futures. What better veteran could they have to learn from than Sabathia, the epitome of a "pro's pro."
Giants fans would flock to AT&T Park to watch Sabathia every fifth day, with the excitement of Lincecum pitching the day after.
Sabathia would be back in the area in which he grew up, pitching half his games at pitcher-friendly AT&T Park, not to mention the opportunity to throw similarly friendly ballparks in Los Angeles and San Diego.
The only glaring downside from Sabathia's point of view would be the unlikelihood of reaching the playoffs. The Giants, even with an outstanding pitching rotation if Sabathia were to join the squad, would need to vastly improve their offense and bullpen to be a playoff contender.
Still, the Giants need a face to their franchise to move beyond the Barry Bonds Era and Sabathia has emphasized the appeal of playing in California and being able to hit, as a NL pitcher. All the Giants need to do is realize Zito's contract is a sunk cost. Even if Sabathia costs an arm and a leg, his dominant pitching, leadership and vivacious personality could bring the Giants just what they need: an identity.
Barry Zito's awful $126 million contract aside, the Giants are a team with no identity. You could make the case that Tim Lincecum is talented enough to be the face of the franchise, but he doesn't seem to carry the charisma to be The Man.
The Giants are a team lacking offense, but their youthful pitching staff is envied around the league. Lincecum, Matt Cain and Jonathan Sanchez have all experienced different levels of success, and they have appear to have very bright futures. What better veteran could they have to learn from than Sabathia, the epitome of a "pro's pro."
Giants fans would flock to AT&T Park to watch Sabathia every fifth day, with the excitement of Lincecum pitching the day after.
Sabathia would be back in the area in which he grew up, pitching half his games at pitcher-friendly AT&T Park, not to mention the opportunity to throw similarly friendly ballparks in Los Angeles and San Diego.
The only glaring downside from Sabathia's point of view would be the unlikelihood of reaching the playoffs. The Giants, even with an outstanding pitching rotation if Sabathia were to join the squad, would need to vastly improve their offense and bullpen to be a playoff contender.
Still, the Giants need a face to their franchise to move beyond the Barry Bonds Era and Sabathia has emphasized the appeal of playing in California and being able to hit, as a NL pitcher. All the Giants need to do is realize Zito's contract is a sunk cost. Even if Sabathia costs an arm and a leg, his dominant pitching, leadership and vivacious personality could bring the Giants just what they need: an identity.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Knicks still an exercise in futility
A change in management, from the front office to the basketball court, still hasn't represented a shift towards common sense in the New York Knicks organization.
The stubbornness of general manager Donnie Walsh and head coach Mike D'Antoni to keep Stephon Marbury on the squad despite their declaration that he won't play is same old, same old for fans alienated by poor decision after poor decision from this franchise. Hey, maybe Walsh and D'Antoni are trying to play it cool, and actually are seeking trade possibilities for Marbury. After all, Marbury is an above-average player whose $21 million salary this season can help a prospective trade partner eliminate a healthy chunk of salary cap space after the season.
But if Walsh and D'Antoni expect that their team can remove itself from all the controversy of the past few years by essentially hiding Marbury at the end of the bench, then they have another thing coming. D'Antoni's remarks yesterday that the New York press would become tired of this story and would stop reporting about it since they'd be "beating a dead horse" shows just how out-of-touch D'Antoni is with the media in his new home city. He might have enjoyed dealing with the laid-back West Coast media in Phoenix, but the Philly-NYC-Boston media triangle torches decisions like the one Walsh and D'Antoni made yesterday.
There is no way the Knicks will create a new team culture as long as perpetrators of the past few years still show up for work every day. It's bad enough that overpaid stiffs like Jerome James and Eddy Curry are still on the team. But declaring that Marbury won't play for the remainder of the season, and then trying to sell fans and the media on the fact that Marbury won't create a disturbance, is about as irrational and unrealistic as you can get.
The stubbornness of general manager Donnie Walsh and head coach Mike D'Antoni to keep Stephon Marbury on the squad despite their declaration that he won't play is same old, same old for fans alienated by poor decision after poor decision from this franchise. Hey, maybe Walsh and D'Antoni are trying to play it cool, and actually are seeking trade possibilities for Marbury. After all, Marbury is an above-average player whose $21 million salary this season can help a prospective trade partner eliminate a healthy chunk of salary cap space after the season.
But if Walsh and D'Antoni expect that their team can remove itself from all the controversy of the past few years by essentially hiding Marbury at the end of the bench, then they have another thing coming. D'Antoni's remarks yesterday that the New York press would become tired of this story and would stop reporting about it since they'd be "beating a dead horse" shows just how out-of-touch D'Antoni is with the media in his new home city. He might have enjoyed dealing with the laid-back West Coast media in Phoenix, but the Philly-NYC-Boston media triangle torches decisions like the one Walsh and D'Antoni made yesterday.
There is no way the Knicks will create a new team culture as long as perpetrators of the past few years still show up for work every day. It's bad enough that overpaid stiffs like Jerome James and Eddy Curry are still on the team. But declaring that Marbury won't play for the remainder of the season, and then trying to sell fans and the media on the fact that Marbury won't create a disturbance, is about as irrational and unrealistic as you can get.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)