Showing posts with label bad trades. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad trades. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

8 comments MMQB Review: Peter Talks about the NFL Teams that "Control" the Draft Again Edition

Peter King interviewed Roger Goodell in last week's MMQB. Goodell, who is ALWAYS available to be interviewed tried as hard as he could to say nothing of substance. Peter also detailed the rule changes that will be introduced as a response to the Ravens-Patriots playoff game where the Patriots confused Baltimore about who was and was not an eligible receiver. Peter also talked briefly about an underrated U2 song, which is an oxymoron like calling a Bruce Springsteen album underrated. This week Peter talks about how the extra point could change (and the NFL isn't even changing it based on something the Patriots did that pissed off an opposing team, which is a shock to me), provides interesting (to him) quotes from head coaches at the league meetings, and doesn't seem to understand athletes don't write what appears on The Players' Tribune. That changed my opinion of the site and perhaps Peter should stop referring to essays on this site "written" by a certain player, as he does several times in this MMQB.

We’re exactly one month out from round one of the NFL draft. There’s a lot to cover this week, including:

Suddenly, the Saints—who are not finished making over their team—own the 2015 draft

The Browns have plenty of draft ammo—that is, unless the NFL takes some of it to smite GM Ray Farmer

Just what parity needs: the Patriots with three prime selections in a six-pick span

Peter does this shit every year. Every year he writes about what team "owns" the draft or "controls" the draft because of all the picks they have. A few years ago it was the 49ers, it was the Patriots before that, and then the Browns controlled the draft one year. I understand it's fun to talk about, but just because a team has a bunch of selections doesn't mean that team "controls" the draft or is going to make smart picks/moves with those picks. The Saints OWN the draft, you know? Sure, they have no cap room, but they have a bunch of picks, which means they don't even have to worry about those being smart picks. The Patriots have "prime" selections in the draft, like they had in the past when they missed on players they drafted in prime spots, while hitting on 7th rounders like Julian Edelman or a 3rd round pick like Logan Ryan. It annoys me because these teams still have to smart in making decisions with these picks. But yet, every year Peter talks about which team "owns" the draft and then forgets about it a year later. At some point I want Peter to realize having a bunch of picks doesn't mean a team "owns" or "controls" the draft.

But first, the biggest change to NFL scoring in the 95-year history of the league is coming. If you don’t like it, get out of the way.

Peter King obviously likes the change to the PAT. He's been advocating for the PAT to be eliminated or changed for a while now.

Last year, in a general session at an NFL meeting, the league’s 32 teams agreed—almost unanimously—that the point after touchdown was passé. Had to go. Too automatic. And so eight days ago, when the competition committee gathered in Phoenix to go over potential rule changes for the 2015 season, the committee was stuck on the PAT fix.

These are NFL problems. How do they fix the PAT, which isn't really broken, but just isn't as exciting as the NFL wants it to be?

There was nothing the group thought it could sell that would get the required 24 votes from the teams. (A rule change needs a three-quarter vote to pass.)

Thirty of 32 teams said they wanted the PAT to change, as teams, one by one, had a chance to advance their own solutions. But the opinions on what the new rule should be “were all over the map,” one competition committee member told me in Phoenix. “That’s the problem now. No one can agree, and now we have to come up with a compromise that’ll get 24 votes in May.”

All 32 NFL teams can agree that they do like money, then they would decide it would be fun to have 10 preseason games and would increase the regular season to 20 games and ask the union if it was fine if the NFL players all played under one year contracts.

This is the most likely compromise to be advanced, and the most likely way the league will amend how teams can score after a touchdown:

Teams will have a choice whether to go for one or two points after a touchdown, from different distances.

If the offensive team chooses to kick for one point, the scrimmage line will move from the 2-yard-line to the 15-yard line, making it a 32- or 33-yard attempt.

If the offensive team chooses to go for two points, the scrimmage line will be either the 1-and-a half- or 2-yard line. There was much debate about making it the 1, the 1-and-a-half or the 2. The feeling about putting it on the 1 was that it could turn into too much of a scrum/push-the-pile play, or a fluky puncture-the-goal-line-with-the-ball-and-bring-it-back play by the quarterback. Putting it at the 1-and-a-half or leaving it at the 2 would increase the chances of a real football play with some drama.

What I wrote in MMQB last week when discussing this same issue:

c. Moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line. (At least.)
 
d. Narrowing the goal posts.
 
e. Making the line of scrimmage for the extra point or two-point conversion the one-yard line.

Obviously "c" and "e" can't both happen,

Well, apparently both "c" and "e" can happen. I can't believe I underestimated the NFL like this. Here is what else I said on this topic:

Also, moving the extra point back to the 15-yard line essentially takes the two-point conversion out of play, unless the NFL wants a rule which says if a team is going for two then they get the ball on the 2-yard line and if a team is trying an extra point then they have to try it from the 15-yard line. That seems dumb to me.

My feelings on the dumbness of this rule still stands. Perhaps it makes sense and I'm just not used to it. The 32 or 33 yard field goal is still fairly automatic, as NFL kickers still make this fairly regularly. Since NFL kickers do miss these then the intended effect the NFL wants will occur. The PAT isn't automatic, but it is kind of dumb to me that a 33 yard field is worth 3 points and a 33 yard extra point is worth 1 point.

Maybe I'll get used to it. I think it's funny that I said both "c" and "e" could not happen at the same time and that seems to be the option the NFL owners have chosen.

The defensive team would be able to score two points by either blocking the PAT and returning it downfield to the end zone, or by intercepting the two-point attempt and running it back, or recovering a fumble on the two-point play and returning it all the way.

Maybe these plays should be worth 1.557 points to the defense, just to drive Gregg Easterbrook crazy with the choice to use over-hyperspecificity. 

Again, that’s not certain. Anytime you ask 24 teams to agree on anything, there’s a chance it won’t happen.

Which means zero new rules would ever be passed. Congress thinks this is a great idea.

There always will be those who don’t want the scoring system to change, because of tradition, or the attitude that football’s not broken, so why fix it? But the PAT is broken. The current system of scoring was invented by the lords of college football in 1912—six points for a touchdown, one for an extra point, two for a safety, three for a field goal—with the two-point conversion added by the NFL in 1994. Now the PAT cries out to be fixed. It’s simply not a competitive play anymore.

This is as opposed to the kickoff, which is now a more competitive play as kick returners now more and more watch the ball sail over their head and trot off the field as another commercial break begins.

Fifteen teams have not missed a PAT this decade. Tennessee hasn’t missed one since 2005, Kansas City and San Francisco since 2006. The Patriots and Broncos, combined, are 436 for 436 since 2011. Doing nothing would be the mistake.

The extra point should probably be changed. Maybe this will fix the problem the NFL has with the extra point being a competitive play and encourage teams to go for a two-point conversion more often.

The Saints will be a headline act. I don’t believe it involves Drew Brees, because I think the Saints are committed to at least one more season of Brees at quarterback. But I hear New Orleans wants to be even more active before the draft, and that could mean dealing stalwart guard Jahri Evans for a third- or fourth-round pick. Or it could mean signing or dealing defensive end Cam Jordan. As of today, the Saints are the biggest power players in the draft. They’re the only team with five picks in the first three rounds. They have 13, 31, 44, 75 and 78. So actually they have five picks in the first two-and-a-half rounds. That gives aggressive GM Mickey Loomis the ammo to start to remake his team.

THE SAINTS ARE GOING TO "OWN" THE DRAFT THIS YEAR!

You want to pick in the top nine. Here’s what a few football people at the league meetings are thinking about the breakdown of this draft: Nine prime picks, then eight or 10 really good prospects, then maybe 30 or so of the same player.

And when has group-think about how many good players are in the draft and where the best place to draft the difference makers for a team ever been wrong? It's why Tavon Austin is the difference maker he is and how Dion Jordan is racking up sacks in Miami.

The top nine: quarterbacks Jameis Winston and Marcus Mariota, defensive tackle Leonard Williams, wideouts Kevin White and Amari Cooper, pass-rushers Dante Fowler and Vic Beasley, offensive tackle Brandon Scherff and cornerback Trae Waynes. After that, beauty starts to be in the eye of the beholder. I had one GM tell me: “The 17th pick on our board might be the 53rd pick on another team’s board—and that could be a team we really respect.”

So what's the point, Peter? Every single year NFL teams value players differently from other NFL teams. Some players aren't even on a team's draft board, while another team values that player as a first round pick. I don't think it's news that different teams have varying values for different players. It's how Mike Mitchell goes in the 2nd round of the draft.

Todd Gurley is the draft’s fascinating player. Every year, draft prospects injured the previous college football season go back to Indianapolis, site of the combine, to have their surgeries re-checked before the draft. This year, the re-checks will be April 17 and 18 in Indy, two weeks before the draft. Gurley tore his ACL on Nov. 15 and had knee reconstruction by Dr. James Andrews on Nov. 25. So he’ll be drafted five months after surgery. The book on Gurley is he’ll be good in 2015 and tremendous in 2016. It’ll be interesting, particularly with the devaluation of running backs in recent drafts, to see who picks Gurley, and how high. I think he’ll be gone by the 25th pick.

One (Me) would think if running backs are being devalued then some enterprising team might not mind selecting a player who can highly contribute in another year. After all, teams select wide receivers and other position players while expecting to put a year or two into that player's development and aren't bothered by doing this. So accordingly, what's the issue with waiting a year for a guy who shown potential to be a franchise running back? If a team can draft a wide receiver and hope he contributes in a year or two, what's wrong with doing that with a running back...even if the position is being devalued?

New England could be a big power player late on day two. The Patriots have their own picks in rounds one and two, 32nd and 64th overall. Then they have their own at the end of the third round, a third-round compensatory pick, and a pick at the top of the fourth round from the Logan Mankins trade last August. They have the 96th, 97th and 101st overall picks. Don’t be surprised to see Bill Belichick/Nick Caserio flip one of those for, say, a prime 2016 pick.

Okay, Peter. Thanks for the breaking news. The Patriots may trade some picks for a pick in the 2016 draft. Would that mean the Patriots will "own" the 2016 draft? If so, consider me to be really impressed.

The Browns and Falcons could lose mid-round picks this week. Cleveland GM Ray Farmer has admitted texting coaches during games, a violation of league rules, and the Falcons have admitted piping in extra crowd noise at the Georgia Dome. Doubt either rises to the level or a first- or second-round pick for a penalty, but I believe both teams will be docked a pick or picks for the violations. The league still has a while to go on the Jets-Patriots tampering case.

With how long it takes the NFL to investigate some things, I was surprised the punishment came down prior to the 2017 NFL Draft.

Ten Questions. Ten [Occasionally Insightful] Answers by Coaches.
Some of the most interesting stuff I heard from coaches at the league meetings in Phoenix:

SEATTLE’S PETE CARROLL

Q: Maybe a torturous one—If you have Jimmy Graham on second-and-goal at the end of the Super Bowl, is your call different?

What kind of question is this? The Seahawks have one of the best running backs in the NFL and that little fact didn't change the call, why would hypothetically having Jimmy Graham get Pete Carroll admit this would change the call?

Carroll: That’s not a torturous question. We didn’t have him! So it’s no big deal. Now, if we were in the situation again, he presents an extraordinary dimension to your offense, and we’ll see how it will unfold for us. We’re looking forward to his factor down there. It’s obvious. Forty-something touchdowns the last three years or whatever it is. [It’s 35.] There’s only a couple of guys who have scored more touchdowns than he has, and one of them is Marshawn Lynch.

So................yes, having Jimmy Graham would have changed the call?

Q: You’ve explained why you called what you called rationally several times. Is your fan base okay with it now?

Yes, the entire Seahawks fan base is okay with it now. Every single Seahawks fan has been polled and they are all perfectly fine with the play call.

Carroll: I might have mentioned it—I don’t know if it was captured or not—we knew we were going to throw the ball down there. If it was gonna take all four plays to score, we knew we were gonna throw the ball down there. That was because of the clock situation. We had prepared for that for years. So it was not a difficult situation. The fact that all the focus goes to it—yeah, that’s what it is. I gotta live with that and with our fans and all that. What I’m feeling from our fans? They’re ready to get going.

Every single one of them. Even Macklemore.

CINCINNATI’S MARVIN LEWIS

Q: Are you worried about Andy Dalton’s play in the playoffs?

It's not entirely certain who is asking these questions, as these are things that Peter King "heard" at the league meetings, but this sounds like a question that Peter would ask. The only way this could be a more obvious Peter King question is if there were a reference to Brett Favre in the question or if he managed to bash Josh Freeman in the question by comparing Dalton's play in the playoffs to Freeman's play with the Vikings.

Lewis: What worries me is our poor performance on defense in the playoffs.

The Bengals have given up 31, 19, 27, and 26 points in the playoffs with Andy Dalton as their quarterback. Obviously the defense hasn't been great, but this could have something to do with the six interceptions Dalton has thrown in these playoff games and the overall poor performance of the offense.

We do know, in order for us to be successful, which we can’t even talk about the playoffs because we haven’t gotten there, but the first thing we do, we have to take care of the ball and play better on defense. … We feel Andy’s our quarterback, and we signed him long-term, and we feel good about him … and we will continue to get better with the pieces around Andy. Andy has done a lot of things so far as a pro that not a lot of people have done. We need to keep playing better around Andy, and that will be helpful to Andy.

Can you say "Andy" a few more times? I'm not entirely sure who you are talking about.

CHICAGO’S JOHN FOX

Q: What do you do to fix Jay Cutler?

More draw plays, take the ball out of his hands with a chance to win the game because there is a 15% chance he will commit a turnover, and of course, more punting on fourth-and-short.

Fox: I think he got to the point that he lacked confidence a year ago. To build that back up is going to take time, daily. It takes trust like any relationship. I think he and [offensive coordinator] Adam Gase having a relationship from back in Denver [is helpful] so I think it starts there. Footballwise, there are things you can do in coaching to minimize some of the exposure.

See, I wasn't kidding. Run the ball, run the ball, draw plays on third down and don't take any chances because SOMETHING NEGATIVE MAY OCCUR and that would be terrible. 

TENNESSEE’S KEN WHISENHUNT

Q: What do you think of Marcus Mariota’s football IQ and his ability to transition to the NFL game?

Whisenhunt: Very high. I think he has very good spatial memory. You say, what’s spatial memory?

Hell fucking no, Peter King isn't asking what spatial memory is! Peter is the one who asks the questions around here! Peter is the one who will use big words and then condescend to his audience by telling them to look the word up. Of course Peter knows what spatial memory is and the next time you ask him a question it will be "Can I at least have the shards of my teeth back?" after Peter curb stomps you for condescending to him. Peter condescends, he is NOT the condescendee.

Like, Oh yeah, that was in this game at this time. Those are the kind of things, to me, that are important for that position. You have to have a memory that can see everything and remember it, because when it happens in a game, then you have to come over and communicate that on the sideline, then you have to have a plan of how you’re gonna adjust to it. That’s what the really successful ones do. So he exhibits that type of quality. We still have a little bit more classroom time with him, but he’s been impressive. He does a lot of things that, no matter what offense you run, transition well to the NFL game.

What's it matter that Whisenhunt thinks highly of Marcus Mariota? Chip Kelly is obviously trading up and selecting Mariota according to the sports media, so Whisenhunt shouldn't even waste his time trying to evaluate Mariota's skill set.

GREEN BAY’S MIKE McCARTHY 
Q: Anything you’d do differently at the end of the NFC championship game?
 
McCarthy: [Pause] That’s part of your scheme evaluation.

Not sure the "pause" notation is necessary since McCarthy had not started speaking yet. Everyone pauses before they start speaking so they can hear the entire question. Or at least, most people pause before speaking.

Personally I’ve gone back and watched the TV copies a few weeks back, just one more time. So as a coaching staff we’ve kind of moved past that. We’re actually starting to put in our installation for 2015.

I take that as a no.

Your spatial memory has not done you wrong, Peter.

“It’s NFL free agency … That’s not a big story.”
—New England coach Bill Belichick, on losing cornerback Darrelle Revis to the Jets in free agency.
Riiiight.

Let Peter tell you about the time he interviewed Bill Belichick and saw "The Art of War" on Belichick's bookshelf...

“I don’t trust the lady on GPS. They don’t send you the right way. I hit the button, I go like this, ‘Park Ridge, New Jersey.’ She comes back on, she’s giving me directions. Now I figure out where I am. I say, ‘Thank you very much, I know exactly where I am now.’ She comes back and says, ‘You don’t have to thank me.’ I swear to God, that’s what she said. Then I couldn’t get her to shut up.”
—Giants coach Tom Coughlin, doing battle with Siri recently as he tried to find the site of one of his grandson’s roller-hockey games in New Jersey.

If I were a Giants fan then these comments would concern me more than any personnel moves the Giants make in the offseason or whatever career trajectory Eli Manning's career seems to be taking. Tom Coughlin sounds like an old man when it comes to using technology and talking about "the lady on GPS." It's the little things like this that worry me the most, hearing a quote like this and thinking there's a 5% chance Tom Coughlin may be going senile in some way.

“In theory, freedom sounds great. We all want more freedom. But when I retired and I had all the freedom in the world, the only thing I craved was that structure. It was all I knew. Adjusting to the lack of structure and schedule is one of the biggest challenges of retirement because the real world moves much slower than the football world. Football is week-to-week, and everyone in the real world is working on the fiscal year. You have to slow yourself down because it’s not a sprint. You can’t attack every day like you do in football. You have to pace yourself and find balance. That’s a new concept for me.”
—Former Chargers center Nick Hardwick, who retired at 33 in February after an 11-year career, all in San Diego, in an essay for The Players’ Tribune.

This is the first of a few times that Peter will mention The Players' Tribune in this MMQB. It's disappointing, though I shouldn't be surprised, that many of the players don't actually write those essays found on the site for The Players' Tribune. The "essay" in many cases is really just a summation of an interview the player did with an editor of The Players' Tribune. Now that I know this, I won't say a player "wrote" something on The Players' Tribune, because I'll assume an editor actually wrote it and the essay is more of an interview.

According to cap site Spotrac, here are the most and least active teams in the first three weeks of free agency (the market essentially is dried up now):

The five biggest spenders in total contract value of signed players:

  1. Jacksonville: $172.5 million
  2. New York Jets: $172.0M
  3. Miami: $139.8M
  4. Philadelphia: $117.3M
  5. Tennessee: $110.2M
What else do the majority of these teams have in common? They haven't made the playoffs over the last three seasons. Philadelphia is the exception of course. These teams have 1 playoff appearance over the last 3 seasons to their credit. I'm guessing the reason these teams haven't made the playoffs isn't because they didn't spend enough money in free agency.

The thrifty five in total contract value of signed players:
  1. Minnesota: $9.3M
  2. Carolina: $8.8M
  3. Detroit: $8.6M
  4. Pittsburgh: $6.6M
  5. Green Bay: Zero
What else do all five of these teams have in common? They have all appeared in the playoffs over the last three seasons. They have 9 playoff appearances over the last three seasons. Weird how they do that without spending a lot of money in free agency.

Obviously only broad conclusions can be drawn from a list showing five teams spending money in free agency and five teams who didn't spend money in free agency, but I still can't help but notice that free agent spending doesn't seem efficient when viewed from the perspective of teams who have spent in free agency. Drafting players and developing them is still the best way to win games.

“We obviously have a philosophy,” coach Mike McCarthy said. “It’s kind of like Groundhog Day. I feel like I answer this every year, so I’ll try to be creative and answer it differently this year. But it’s just the way we operate. We do the evaluations. We just stick to our plan. Our number one priority always has been to sign our own free agents. We go into every offseason—if we have 10 conversations, nine-and-a-half of them are about our own guys.”

Free agency is a market where the highest bidder almost always wins. It's not the best place for a team to go looking to plug holes in the roster caused by ineffective drafting or personnel choices. Free agency can absolutely work for a team, but I don't think it's a coincidence the best teams don't spend big in free agency.

Bill Madden of the New York Daily News wrote Sunday that the Tigers owe Miguel Cabrera, Justin Verlander, Victor Martinez, Ian Kinsler and Anibel Sanchez $639 million in guaranteed money between now and the end of their contracts.
Costanza voice: “Is that wrong?”

Coming from a Red Sox fan, really? The Red Sox haven't spent huge lately, but they have certainly spent their share of money on contracts. Come on, it's not like Peter's favorite team doesn't spend a lot of money on contracts for their players. They aren't the Yankees, but the Red Sox also aren't a mid-market team either.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think I can now say with certainty that The Other Team in the chase for Sam Bradford—as many have inferred—was Cleveland. The Browns would have been willing to part with a first-round pick in either 2015 or 2016 (I do not know which year) for Bradford, but there were two problems: One, the Browns didn’t have a quarterback to give in return, and Philadelphia was willing to fork over Nick Foles.

The Rams didn't want Thad Lewis? No way. 

Two, Bradford would not have been willing to sign a new contract this off-season if he were traded to Cleveland, and he is willing to consider an extension in Philadelphia. So the Philly deal was really the only one that made sense for the Rams and for Bradford, in the end.

I'm not sure how I feel about the Browns having interest in Sam Bradford. It seems like giving up on Johnny Manziel after one season, while also feeling like not a bad move for the team. I don't see why the Browns would give up a first round pick for a quarterback like Bradford, but there are so many things I don't understand in life. Like, didn't the Browns just sign Josh McCown before they tried to acquire Bradford?

2. I think the Vikings can say a hundred times they’re not trading Adrian Peterson, and I believe they believe they will not. But the Vikings also have to understand Peterson and agent Ben Dogra could be serious about making it very hot for them this summer if they don’t trade him on draft weekend. How could Peterson make it hot? By not reporting to camp. By being a huge distraction that would drive Mike Zimmer crazy. If I were Minnesota GM Rick Spielman, I’d trade Peterson for a second-round pick if I could get it. He’s 30. He is owed $45 million over the next three years.

A second round pick for Adrian Peterson when he is owed $45 million over the next three years? I'm sure there is a team that would take this dive, but best of luck with that turning out well. And I love how Peterson threatens to hold out. How is he going to be a distraction that drives Mike Zimmer crazy? Is Peterson going to show up and photobomb Zimmer's press conferences or interrupt practice by running on the field naked? Sure, Peterson could be a distraction, but the Vikings can simply hold on to him and wait until he realizes he's 30 and the only leverage he has is that he can make life difficult for the Vikings. Plus, acting like an asshole and intentionally becoming a distraction doesn't seem like the best way for Peterson to drum up a trade market for himself.

3. I think the 2014 trades with 2015 draft implications that look the worst are, in order:
a. Buffalo sending a 2015 fourth-round pick to Philadelphia for running back Bryce Brown (2014: 36 carries, 126 yards), now buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Bills’ depth chart.

Except Bryce Brown somehow managed to fetch a fourth round pick for his services when he was buried behind LeSean McCoy on the Eagles' depth chart, so it's not necessarily a status that means Brown can't/won't contribute to the Bills team.

b. Seattle getting only a sixth-round pick, from the Jets, for Percy Harvin.

Seems like it was addition by subtraction to me.

6. I think, after his ignominious performance in 2014, it hasn’t surprised me that the market for Michael Vick is somewhere between grim and nonexistent.

Ouch. Peter King going hard at Mike Vick for being grim and nonexistent. I wonder if Peter has some harsh words for Matt Schaub or Matt Flynn for being grim and nonexistent? My guess is he does not. After all, he justified the Josh McCown signing by explaining what a great teacher McCown is.

7. I think the more I think of New Orleans signing C.J. Spiller—27 years old, making $9.5 million over the next two seasons, 5.3 yards per rush combined in 2012 and ’13 before his lost season in Buffalo last fall—the more I think the Saints made a great deal. I love Spiller.

Especially since the Saints have zero salary cap issues and certainly didn't just re-sign another running back named Mark Ingram this past offseason, so spending $9.5 million over two years on a running back in a draft where there seem to be a variety of quality running backs does seem like a great deal.

9. I think Indianapolis coach Chuck Pagano coaching out the last season of his contract—regardless of whatever Pagano or any team official would say—means that something, either major or minor, is amiss. You do not let a coach with 36 wins in three years coach out his contract, particularly if you are intent on him staying and coaching your team beyond this season. 

This is some major inside information. So teams that want their head coach to continue coaching for them DO NOT fail to re-sign that head coach to a new contract prior to his contract running out? Are you sure about that, Peter? It seems counter intuitive to learn that an NFL team might offer a coach they wanted to keep a new contract prior to his old one running out, but this is just another example of the great information MMQB provides.

Ian Rapoport reported a new deal won’t get done, and longtime Colts beat man Mike Chappelle reported Pagano turned down a one-year extension. Something just doesn’t feel right about it.

It could be the Colts don't want to pay Pagano the money that he wants to coach the team. Maybe the Colts think Pep Hamilton is a better coach or perhaps Pagano is a bit frustrated he was saddled with Trent Richardson for most of the season.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

b. College Basketball Fever Dept.: New Jersey Institute of Technology travels to Flagstaff, Ariz., to play Northern Arizona for the semifinals of the CollegeInsider.com Tournament.
c. When NJIT and Northern Arizona meet, I mean, you can throw the records out the window.

Yes, let's mock college basketball tournaments because they aren't as relevant as the NCAA Tournament. That's the mature thing to do.

d. I also agree with Dan Shaughnessy: The more David Ortiz talks and writes about not being a PED user (which Ortiz did last week for The Players’ Tribune),

Except Ortiz didn't really write what appeared in The Players' Tribune, but I guess Peter is okay with a fellow journalist not getting credit for what he has written. I'm sure the editors of The Players' Tribune are just the CollegeInsider.com Tournament to THE MMQB's NCAA Tournament, so who cares if they get credit for what they have written?

e. Best piece on The Players’ Tribune, of all of them that I’ve read, was that Nick Hardwick adjusting-to-retirement essay. What a fantastic job of explaining so much about retirement that those of us who never played anything professionally would be able to feel.

Except, again, Nick Hardwick probably didn't even really write this essay. He spoke it and someone else edited and wrote the essay.

f. I like those pieces by the new Jeter site. But (he said, sticking his chest out with some pride) The Players’ Tribune didn’t invent the first-person athlete column. Nor did The MMQB. But our site did a score of them when Jeter was still a shortstop and not a publisher—by Richard Sherman, on multiple topics; by Russell Wilson, on race in the NFL; by journeyman defensive end Austen Lane, a gut-puncher of a piece on what it’s like be cut; by Lydon Murtha, a teammate of Richie Incognito and Jonathan Martin, on life on the inside of the bullying in Miami. And others. Just to set the record straight.

Were these essays all ghost written by someone else too? If so, I can see why Peter has no issue with an athlete getting credit for something another person has actually edited and written.

g. I really like the Yanks’ top two, Tanaka and Pineda. But is C.C. Sabathia even going to be in the rotation by June?

(Bengoodfella uses his psychic skills) Yes, he will be in the rotation in June.

h. Big, big blow if the Red Sox have lost catcher Christian Vasquez, who I keep reading is a Molina-type defender and arm. 

Peter King thinks this was a huge blow to the Red Sox based on something that Peter King has read about this player, and while he has no firsthand knowledge of this player's abilities, based on what others say it was a huge blow, so Peter is just going to adopt that as the truth based on information he doesn't really know.

I can't believe the Braves traded Andy Marte a few years ago, a guy who I kept reading was just like Aramis Ramirez. 

Not that Boston’s going to have enough pitching to win this year, but catchers can make pitchers better.

#analysis

l. Is baseball serious? Opening night next Sunday at Wrigley … and game two, another night game two nights later in Chicago? Why torture fans—and, presumably, frozen-fingered pitchers? Luckily for MLB, the long-range forecast is for temperatures in the 40s both nights.

Nope Peter, it is all a joke that is being played on you. Opening night is actually in Bermuda at an undisclosed location between two teams who were last seen playing in the CollegeInsider.com tournament.

p. Tom Brady cliff-diving one day, playing pickup basketball with Michael Jordan the next. How’s your off-season going?

I have a full-time job that doesn't have an offseason and I have to work year around. So my offseason is going terribly because it doesn't exist. #alwaysriseandgrind

r. Coffeenerdness: Why’d you take away the hazelnut macchiato, Starbucks? That was my occasional guilty pleasure. No more.

Starbucks should continue to make the hazelnut macchiato in every Starbucks in the United States, just for Peter King, because who knows when Peter is liable to wander into any Starbucks in the United States. In fact, baristas at Starbucks should only be trained on how to make coffee-flavored drinks that Peter King likes. Everyone else can just get used to it.

v. Just when you think you’ve seen every possible horrendous thing done by human beings, a pilot crashes a jetliner into a mountain on purpose, and 150 die.

He was actually the co-pilot, but point taken.

The Adieu Haiku

Yo! Trade Adrian.  
Forty-five mill’s too much for
a back who’s thirty.


These haikus are the sportswriting equivalent of a turd sundae as dessert after a four-course meal of expired lettuce, rancid meat, and squirrel testicles for an appetizer.

Tuesday, March 17, 2015

2 comments MMQB Review: The Insanity of the NFL Has Blown Peter's Mind Until It Blows His Mind Again Next Year Edition

We still have open spots in the fantasy baseball league and if anyone wants to join then send me an email to bengoodfella@yahoo.com and I will send you an invite.

Peter King detailed his brief trip to Iceland in last week's MMQB. Peter also dismissed the importance of signing big name free agents and spending money early in free agency, all while saturating his coverage in MMQB with rumors and discussion of where the big name free agents will land and which teams will be spending money early in free agency. This week talks about the Sam Bradford trade to the Eagles, thoughts on the free agency moves that "shook up" the football world (not that Peter would ever go overboard with hyperbole or anything...this has been the craziest offseason since at least last year's offseason though), puts a timeline to Darrelle Revis because Peter can't get enough of discussing Revis, and laughably says he spoke with "someone" on the competition committee about rule changes regarding what constitutes a catch and everyone knows that "someone" was Jeff Fisher. I mean, come on, Peter has mentioned 2-3 times in MMQB he's had conversations about Jeff Fisher and what constitutes a catch. I would bet this "someone" is Fisher.

The NFL’s opening weekend is 26 weeks away, which is why there’s no good reason to say the sky is falling in any NFL market.

I hope Peter is sure to tell other sportswriters that the sky is not falling in any NFL market as they award the "winners" and "losers" of the free agency period.

And of course, what follows in this MMQB will be Peter's judgments on what NFL teams did or didn't do in free agency. The sky isn't falling, but judgment day for offseason moves has arrived.

This morning, before I get to one of the strangest weeks in NFL offseason history, three notes:

CRAZIEST NFL OFFSEASON EVER!*

*Until the next offseason

In Hawaii early this morning Eastern Time, the National Football League Players Association elected DeMaurice Smith to a third three-year term as executive director. It seems amazing that Smith was elected unanimously on the first ballot, seeing that he had eight challengers in an impassioned run-up to the vote. Smith was vulnerable in this election, for many reasons—including the impression that he did a bad deal with the 2011 CBA and his consistently contentious relationship with the league—but none of his challengers could muster the required 17 of 32 votes from the player reps who spent the weekend listening to proposals for the job.

It's almost like the NFL players eventually recognized the big beef they had with Smith was the result of an agreement they themselves had approved. 

There’s some noise out there that Adrian Peterson could be traded to Arizona. Well, I guess he could, at some point. But the money would be a major problem. I spoke with a reliable Cardinals source Sunday night, and the three years and $45 million left on Peterson’s contract is an absolute non-starter with the Cards.

What? Why would paying a running back $15 million per year be a non-starter? Though I do like the idea if Peterson landed with the Cards then sportswriters would talk about how Bruce Arians made a brilliant move, while Chip Kelly continues to be beaten up for signing DeMarco Murray for less money than Peterson makes.

It's funny how things change so quickly. Last year, Kelly was the darling of the NFL media and this year Arians is inching his way to being the darling. I can't wait for a sportswriter to point out that if Arians is so great then how come he has zero playoff or Super Bowl victories?

Two other detrimental factors: Arizona loves the running-back crop in this draft, and the Cardinals, with the 23rd and 55th overall picks, would be able to get a very good one. And Peterson turns 30 on Saturday. Not an optimum age for a back, even one who got so little wear on his tires in 2014.

I believe Todd Gurley will be a Top 10 running back in the NFL. So if I were any team who was in position to draft him then I would not be paying big money for a running back. That includes Chip Kelly and the Eagles, though I guess he doesn't love Gurley as much as I do.

And new Eagles quarterback Sam Bradford, who flies from his home in Oklahoma to Philadelphia this morning to get on a new rehab track for his left ACL injury, still needs to be pinched. Bitterness-free, Bradford can’t believe his good fortune.

Well, Bradford is just going to miss the Rams propelling themselves into Super Bowl contention based on the trade they just made with the Eagles. It's just like how Jeff Fisher worked three additional first round picks from the Redskins into zero playoff appearances.

A little history here: When Jimmy Johnson took over the Cowboys a quarter-century ago, he was Chip Kelly.

What? Reincarnation IS real? I hope I come back as someone really cool when/if I'm reincarnated. Wait, doesn't a person have to be dead before that person's soul can be reincarnated? Wait even more, how was Johnson Chip Kelly 25 years ago and now Chip Kelly is Johnson? Come to think of it, I had never heard of Chip Kelly 25 years ago. Did Chip Kelly kill Jimmy Johnson and steal his soul? I haven't seen Johnson in a while, so not only is Chip Kelly making the personnel moves he wants to make that go against conventional wisdom but he's stealing the soul of others now? What an asshole.

College coach with a satchel of ideas he would bring to the big leagues—a small and fast defense, a willingness to trade in a league that hated trading (Dallas made 55 trades in his tenure), hubris, believing that what won in college could win in the NFL, and being married to no individual player or coach. It worked. Dallas won three Super Bowls, two with Johnson as coach and then one with Barry Switzer coaching Johnson’s players.

Oh. Well, Johnson was sort of married to Emmitt Smith wasn't he? He and the Cowboys were all bold about letting Smith hold out prior to the 1993 season, then backed down and gave him a new contract once they lost two games to start the 1993 season. I'm sure that was all Jerry Jones' fault. We know he was always hesitant to pay his own players. 

“Does Kelly remind you of you, 25 years ago?” I asked Johnson the other day.

“Well, in some ways,” Johnson said. “I really like what I have seen out of Chip Kelly. Chip called me and we visited a couple times, and what I heard from him, I liked.

Chip Kelly has visited Jimmy Johnson a couple of times and now Peter says Johnson is a sounding board for Kelly. Maybe, but it doesn't sound like they are BFF's or anything like that.

“The similarities? We’re both confident, both competent, both know how to win. We talked after he got the new responsibilities this year.

These are the new responsibilities that Kelly insisted just fell in his lap and he in no way requested that he be given them.

I just said, ‘Go with people you believe in, and go with players who fit your personality and fit your system.’ I have talked to Bill Belichick about this too. Certain players are going to be successful in his system and not in others.”

JIMMY JOHNSON IS A SOUNDING BOARD FOR BILL BELICHICK!

So does this mean that Jimmy Johnson is the respected ex-head coach who deals out advice to current head coaches? He is the Tony Dungy for NFL head coaches I guess.

The most controversial trade of them all last week was Bradford and a fourth-round pick to Philadelphia for Nick Foles and a second-round pick. Bradford’s played seven games in the past two years. He’s had two ACL tears to the same knee. By the time this season kicks off, he will have not played in a regular-season game for 22 months. That concerns most everyone who loves the Eagles.

(Bengoodfella tapes his mouth shut about which team these types of injuries to Bradford never seemingly concerned because it's all over now and there is no need to harp on how a fan base's time and money was wasted because the head coach for the Rams knew he wasn't going to get fired simply based on the reputation the media furthers that he is an extremely good head coach)

“Oh yeah,” Johnson said. “The last conversation was over an hour, going over everything. He was loading his guns.”

But then Johnson had to tell Kelly that he couldn't actually shoot LeSean McCoy and Nick Foles to remove them off the roster, he had to waive or trade them instead. Chip Kelly silently put his loaded guns back up and started to remake the Eagles roster in the image he wanted, much to the horror of the sports media.

So you’re Chip Kelly, and you look at the quarterback landscape, and this is what you see:

The quarterback you want, Marcus Mariota, going somewhere in the top five or six picks of the 2015 draft, and you’re picking 20th, and you know it’ll obliterate two drafts to have a chance to move up to get him.

So is it known that Kelly wants Mariota or is this just someone that has been constantly repeated so much it is accepted as fact because Kelly hasn't refuted this belief enough?

Nick Foles, who had a very hot streak in 2013, but just isn’t accurate enough downfield for your taste.

Well, I'm not sure how much more Kelly is going to like Bradford then.

One interesting, but flawed, prospect: Sam Bradford, the first pick in the 2010 draft, who’d played for an offensively challenged team in St. Louis—and played but seven games in the past two seasons because he tore his left ACL in two straight seasons. Bradford was intriguing because he’d operated a fast-paced spread scheme at Oklahoma, and Kelly was playing a fast-paced spread scheme with the Eagles (though with some significant differences).

So Sam Bradford has been in the NFL for five seasons now and he'll be 28 years old in November, but he's still a "prospect." Sure, whatever truth tickles Peter King the most.

“Usually,” Bradford said from his home in Oklahoma City, “when you get to go to a new team, you’re going somewhere that’s rebuilding, or somewhere starting over. How often do you get to a team that’s won 10 games the last two years?

Yeah, but the Eagles have zero playoff wins and zero Super Bowl titles under Chip Kelly, so there is clearly something wrong with his plan two seasons into having said plan.

Bradford flies from Oklahoma to Philadelphia today to start his second act. It’s a strange situation in this way: He tore his ACL in mid-season 2013 and went into rehab led by Reggie Scott, the Rams’ trainer. After tearing the same ACL again last August in a preseason game, he went back to work with Scott to rehab it all over again. And last Tuesday, after a rehab session with Scott at the Rams’ facility in suburban St. Louis, Bradford was told by coach Jeff Fisher that he’d been traded. Bradford was in his car going home when Kelly called to welcome him to the Eagles. They’d never spoken before. Bradford didn’t have a chance—and still hasn’t had one—to thank Scott for all the work he did with him for two years.

If only there was a way to use correspondence sent over a computer or a phone line in order to get a chance to thank Scott for all the work he did for Bradford over the years. Bradford will just have to send his best carrier pigeon to get the message to Scott, but only as soon as he gets the opportunity to write the message out and put it in the pigeon's mouth. Who knows when that will be?

“I don’t think you let it bother you,” Bradford said. “The past two injuries, I don’t think I’ve done anything wrong. I just think I’ve been unlucky. It just happened.

How about the injury Bradford suffered at Oklahoma and the six games he missed in 2011? I guess that was bad luck too. By the way, the idea Bradford is a better downfield passer and more accurate than Nick Foles is great. Bradford's career completion percentage is 58.6% and he's never completed more than 60.7% of his passes in a season.

“I think I will be as good as I have ever been playing the position. And playing for Chip excites me. I love being challenged. I want to soak up all of it.’’

Soaking it up while in a hot tub rehabbing an injury of course.

It’s not a honeymoon in every precinct. Philadelphia’s doubting Kelly right now, and there’s still an outside chance he could shock the world and pick Mariota to be his guy at quarterback, should Mariota go tumbling down the draft board. But with the first game six months away, there will be plenty of time for apoplexy. Let’s enjoy one man gambling his future on a quarterback with a wounded knee.

I do agree with this though. I love how the sports media is SHOCKED and ANGERED that Chip Kelly is making such a huge mistake to count on Sam Bradford to stay healthy, yet where was this absolute SHOCK and ANGER the past few years when the Rams were counting on Sam Bradford to stay healthy for an entire season? I guess the Rams got the benefit of the doubt because they drafted Bradford, but I still find the reactions interesting. It's not like the Rams weren't counting on Bradford to be healthy in the same way Chip Kelly is relying on him, but rarely did I read criticism prior to the 2014 season of Jeff Fisher for relying on Bradford. Now Chip Kelly has traded for Bradford and his sanity is being questioned.

Twenty thoughts on the week that shook the NFL.

Only twenty thoughts? I just want to make sure we still get the ten other things that Peter thinks later in this MMQB as well. I need at least 30 of Peter King's thoughts in each MMQB.

2. But signing Darren McFadden? He’s a Dallas backfield place-holder, for just $200,000 in guarantees. The 2008 fourth overall pick could be on the team as part of a running back committee in September (I keep thinking Todd Gurley’s an ideal fit in Dallas late in round one), or he could be gone. We’ll see what the running back market dictates.

Considering the offensive line that McFadden played behind in Oakland and the lack of big money guarantees with his talent level, that's a really smart risk the Cowboys took to sign McFadden. He's always injured, but he's really talented too.

3. No question in my mind we’ll see a bunch of Michael Johnson-type contracts out of the Class of 2015 free agents. In other words, one and done. One mediocre season, and on the street a few rich men will go.

Which is why Peter's constant discussion of the early days of free agency, while dismissing the early days of free agency as not that important strikes me as so odd. He and THE MMQB seem to buy into the early days of free agency hype, while also dismissing the long-term importance of these large contracts handed out. That's how it works. The hype of free agency is written about, despite the lack of a correlation in teams that spend big in free agency and win the Super Bowl the following season.

9. One thing we know now: It’s likely that the Jets would have blown out of the water any offer for Revis. So at first blush, I thought the Patriots erred and should have spent the money the Jets did. But now it’s apparent the Jets would have just upped the ante, and Revis would have ended up in New Jersey anyway.

I think this was pretty much known at the time too, no? I remember talk that the Jets were going to do what they had to do in order to get Revis back to New York. Maybe I am misremembering.

12. So happy about this: Schneider, Chip Kelly, Mickey Loomis, Ryan Grigson, John Dorsey and Les Snead are not your father’s GMs and club architects. They trade. They take chances. That’s what made last week so fun, and so compelling.

Except who is the outlying GM on that list who is "compelling" and makes trades, but these trades haven't yet resulted in a playoff appearance? Peter won't mention that part when lauding Snead for taking chances. It's fun to take chances, but it's better when these chances actually lead to a playoff appearance.

13. Michael Johnson can’t complain about free agency. Not at all. He made $9 million in salary and bonus last year jumping from Cincinnati to Tampa to rush the passer. His production was measly: 28 pressures/hits/sacks in 648 defensive snaps, according to Pro Football Focus. And so the Bucs, who owed him $7 million guaranteed this year, cut him anyway. The Bengals signed him Sunday, and he’ll make $6 million for Cincinnati. So one of the least productive pass-rushers in football will make $22 million in 2014 and ’15 combined. What a country.

I dislike it when Peter writes "what a country" in MMQB when discussing situations like Michael Johnson's situation. Peter writes about sports for a living and makes six or seven figures doing this. His saying "what a country" while doing a job thousands of others would love to do at his compensation level seems a bit ironic to me.

14. Jabaal Sheard’s a great signing in New England. The Patriots like big bodies who can rush the passer and are durable enough to handle run duties. At 264 pounds, Sheard’s a player who should have been a Patriot all along, and should have been picked atop the second round in 2011.

"Sheard's a player who should have been a Patriot all along." Peter gets paid six or seven figures to write things like this. What a country.

What does this statement even mean? As if every football player who can rush the passer and handle run duties needs to be a Patriot? Like no other NFL team is looking for a player like that? Other teams are like, "Nah, we're good. We don't need a player who can rush the passer and stop the run." Only the Patriots are smart enough to realize the value of these players.

15. Now that Trent Richardson has been cut loose by Indianapolis, let’s assess one of the worst draft picks in modern NFL history. Not just because Richardson has been terrible in the NFL, but think of this: Cleveland had the fourth pick in the 2012 draft. Minnesota had the third pick. To ensure that they’d get Richardson, the player they were desperate to have, the Browns moved from four to three in round one, giving Minnesota fourth, fifth and seventh-round picks to move one slot.

Yeah, but Peter's boy, Ryan Grigson then followed this up by giving up a first round draft pick for Trent Richardson. But hey, Grigson is compelling and takes chances so Peter will let him off the hook. It's nice to have a franchise quarterback to shield a GM from some criticism.

This is always a dangerous game to play,

Which means (repeat after me), Peter is going to immediately choose to play this game. It's always easy to know Peter will do something after he states that something probably shouldn't be done.

but the Browns, had they bypassed Richardson and kept the fourth pick and the picks in rounds four, five and seven, could have had linebacker Luke Kuechly, wide receiver Jairus Wright, running back Alfred Morris and either kicker Justin Tucker or linebacker Vontaze Burfict. Now, the trade of Richardson for Indy’s first-round pick in 2014 did salvage some shred of value for Richardson. Then the Browns used that pick to trade up four slots to select Johnny Manziel. Had they bypassed Manziel, Cleveland could have had a Joe Haden corner partner, Bradley Roby, in the first round, and with that pick in the third round, wideout depth in Donte Moncrief. I repeat: This is a dangerous game to play, because I don’t know who the Browns had on the draft board near those slots. But if Manziel flunks out as a Brown, the amazing thing will be that they had two chances to get the high 2012 pick right and failed at each.

Here's another fun game to play. Which player could the Colts have chosen with the 26th pick in the draft that they traded to the Browns for Trent Richardson? Yes, I know that game isn't one Peter will play because Grigson's team isn't failing like the Browns are, but again, it's nice to have Andrew Luck to cover up for mistakes and shield Grigson from some criticism.

The Colts could have drafted:

Bradley Roby
Joel Bitonio
Jordan Matthews
Jeremy Hill
Carlos Hyde
Jarvis Landry
Justin Britt
Martavis Bryant

But nah, let's keep pointing and laughing at the Browns while forgetting the Colts traded a first round pick for Richardson AFTER they knew he wasn't a very good NFL running back.

The Darrelle Revis timeline since his first go-round with the New York Jets:

Much like his obsession with Nnamdi Asomugha's free agency a few years ago, Peter seems to be a bit obsessed with Darrelle Revis and his free agency adventures over the past couple of years. I guess Peter really likes to discuss cornerbacks who are considered to be the best in the free agent class.

March 10, 2015: Rather than pay Revis $20 million in 2015, the Patriots release him. This means that, though he signed two contracts totaling $128 million, Revis actually saw $28 million of it.

Someone alert the authorities! Revis only saw $28 million of his two contracts totaling $128 million. There's a wrong been done!

In 24 months, Revis was (and is being) coached by Rex Ryan, Greg Schiano, Bill Belichick, and the coach he just met—Todd Bowles. In just over two years, he’s had six general managers: Mike Tannenbaum, John Idzik, Mark Dominik, Jason Licht, Bill Belichick (and Nick Caserio, the Patriots’ personnel czar) and Mike Maccagnan. He played in green, pewter red, red/white/blue, and green again.
So what exactly was it like?

And it's important not to forget that Revis made the decision to be coached by all of these coaches and play for five of those GM's. Otherwise, he made the decision to force a trade from the Jets, sign with the Patriots, and then sign with the Jets. Let's hold off a bit on the sympathy for his plight.

Revis: “Getting hurt, tearing my ACL, and getting prepared for the next season, trade talks and me leaving, not knowing where I’m going to play football, what my future is, and then playing in Tampa, getting traded to Tampa, and then getting released by them and trying to figure out the best place to try to win, and I felt the best place was New England. So, it’s been a crazy two or three years in my career.

Part of the reason Revis didn't know where he was playing football in a few of these instances is because he chose free agency through how his contract was set up or he requested a trade. Only a fool would really think Revis would see the back-end of a $96 million contract that is non-guaranteed or the Patriots would pay him $20 million for the 2015 season.

Three questions with founder of Over The Cap

I’ve gained a lot of respect for 39-year-old engineer (that’s his real job) Jason Fitzgerald and his site, Over The Cap, which catalogs NFL contracts and how teams are doing managing their salary caps.

The MMQB: You wrote Thursday that the Ndamukong Suh contract in Miami is particularly onerous. What concerns you in the future about that deal for the Dolphins, and how will they handle it?

Fitzgerald: In order to fit Suh within their cap easily this season, the Dolphins opted for a structure that will see Suh count for only $6 million against the cap, despite the annual contract value of $19.1 million. That leaves Suh with an average cap charge for the 2016-2018 seasons of $21.9 million. Quite honestly I am not sure how you compete in the NFL for a championship with those figures, especially for a defensive tackle.

It’s a situation where a team or a person gets it in their mind that they need a player to make an impact on an organization, and they lose sight of what they may be giving up to get that.

This is otherwise known as "what happens during free agency in almost every major sport."

“It’s home. It’s family. As much as my wife and kids are family, so is the Rooney family and my team and coaches.”

—Ben Roethlisberger, on signing a five-year, $99 million extension with the Steelers on Saturday.

The fact the Steelers were giving Roethlisberger approximately $50 million of this $99 million guaranteed didn't hurt his feelings of family towards the Rooney family and the Steelers organization either. Money is a great way to make someone feel like a part of the family.

“That was a big thing with him. It is with most quarterbacks. He didn’t look anybody off. He’s a competitor, though. He threw three interceptions in this game, and he just kept throwing. He wasn’t scared of us.”

—University of Louisville cornerback Gerod Holliman on Florida State quarterback Jameis Winston, to Robert Klemko of The MMQB. Holliman led the nation with 14 interceptions in 2014, including two off Winston.

This is compared to other college quarterbacks who aren't required to look off a safety because the offensive scheme is designed for him to simply have one read and then throw to the open man. I know this isn't criticism necessarily from Holliman, but the rare college quarterback is able to look off a safety and get the ball to another open guy on a consistent basis.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

I didn’t travel in the past seven days. But I did get a good Stories of New York tale from my old boss at “Inside the NFL” on HBO, Brian Hyland, from a Manhattan scene he experienced Saturday. Sharing it:

“Subway elevator this morning. Little old man in a wheelchair, wearing a Yankee hat and a heavy coat for the cold rain. He has a helper but it ain’t easy getting through the door onto the street. I help push him through onto Fort Washington Avenue. As I maneuver to help, he helps me. We’re squeezing him through the heavy green door and as he reaches to push, the sleeve of his coat on his arm moves up towards his elbow. And there I see it. In fading black ink. Covered with arm hair but clear. The number the Nazis gave him. Part of him. Forever on his arm.

“We get him through the door, he says, ‘Thanks, young man’ and his helper pushes him down Fort Washington Avenue. Another random Saturday morning in New York City that takes your breath away.”

This is a pet peeve of mine. "Another random Saturday morning in New York City that takes your breath away." As if there are no Holocaust survivors in any other part of the United States. No other interesting and great moments happen in other United States cities. ONLY IN NEW YORK CITY does this type of thing happen. We all know that New York City is so fucking special because those people who live there won't stop telling us about how special the city is. Great, good for you. Everything you think is special to New York City isn't necessarily exclusive to that city. It's just other citizens of other cities don't take the time to tell you how special their city is. 

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think, after speaking to someone who was a part of the competition committee’s deliberations over the past two weeks,

Gee, I wonder who this "someone" is? Peter has talked to Jeff Fisher 2-3 times in MMQB about the competition committee and his feelings on any rule changes regarding what constitutes a catch. If the "someone" Peter is talking about here agrees with Jeff Fisher, (a) why the secretiveness? and/or (b) what are the odds this "someone" is actually Jeff Fisher? 

I would be surprised if anything significant was changed on what constitutes a catch when the league meetings begin next Sunday in Phoenix. There could be a minor tweak to the rule, but the feeling I get regarding the tenor in the room over the past couple of weeks is this: Committee members feel receivers need to maintain control when going to the ground.

So basically Peter is reporting the same thing that Jeff Fisher, the head of the competition committee, has been saying for most of the offseason? This is news, but who is this "someone" that Peter is talking to about what constitutes a catch if this "someone" isn't the same person that Peter has been talking to all offseason about what constitutes a catch? I find it odd that Peter uses the term "someone" here when the opinion held agrees with the head of the competition committee's opinion. If this committee member isn't Jeff Fisher, why is he concerned his name will be tied to an opinion that Jeff Fisher has repeatedly states he agrees with?

2. I think this is what I thought after the esteemed Charley Casserly said on NFL Network following Marcus Mariota’s Pro Day: “Not a sure thing. If you’re going to take him, you’ve got to hold your breath.” What if Mariota—and this is a huge “what if” because of all the teams that need quarterbacks in the draft this year—starts to tumble down the draft board in round one? What if Washington passes on him at 5, and the Jets have some cold feet at 6, and GM Les Snead of the Rams loves Nick Foles and sees bigger needs at 10, and the Browns at 12 and the Texans at 16 and the Browns again at 19 all have cold feet for one reason or another? All of those things are incredibly unlikely, but what if? What if Mariota is staring Sam Bradford-loving Chip Kelly in the face at 20, or if Kelly sees Mariota tumbling at 12, 13, 14, and he thinks he’s just got to go for the gusto now? That would be one of the best stories in recent draft history, Kelly getting Mariota.

Stop rosterbating, Peter. I like how he is openly cheering for a storyline that will allow him to write easy stories and reinforces the perception he is trying to give in MMQB. What makes Mariota going to Kelly's Eagles a better story than any other college coach drafting or having a chance to draft his old college quarterback? Other than the media has forced the whole "Kelly wants Mariota" perception down the throats of the public, even though at this point there isn't much reality behind this perception, of course.

3. I think, drifting back to reality, I absolutely do not believe it’s going to happen. But it’s not an impossible dream. Just an unlikely one.

Okay, first, this thought #3 should be up with thought #2 since it is a continuation of thought #2. Second, it's the impossible dream for a sportswriter who wants easy stories to write and confirmation of a perception to be reinforced. There's nothing like reading about the media openly cheering for certain storylines to develop.

4. I think Trent Richardson goes down in NFL history as one of the strangest stories. Ever.

Why is "ever" a separate sentence? It fits into the sentence. Easily.

5. I think this is the best way to put the biggest deal of the weekend in perspective: Ben Roethlisberger will be only be 37 at the end of his 16th season as Steeler quarterback in 2019—if he lasts that long, of course—and that’s an age when quarterbacks are still having peak seasons. Today, with quarterbacks doing so much in the offseason to stay healthy and make their careers last, I really like what the Steelers did.

That does put the Roethlisberger contract in perspective for me. My perspective is altered by knowing quarterbacks who are older can still serve a purpose to their team, but mostly altered by my newfound knowledge that Peter liked what the Steelers did in extending Roethlisberger.

They told the world that Roethlisberger is their quarterback for life.

Well except for the fact, as Peter just noted, this is an age when quarterbacks are still having peak seasons when Roethlisberger's contract runs out. So he is the Steelers' quarterback for life, except for the part where Peter thinks Roethlisberger will be playing at a high level and his contract will have run out.

9. I think the Jets must not have liked their roster very much. They signed, re-signed or traded for 11 players in the first three days of the 2015 league year.

What was to like about the roster? The Jets have a new GM and new head coach. Changes happen when new head coaches and GM's are hired. Of course, as we learned with Chip Kelly turning over the Eagles roster, many personnel changes are only allowable when discussing unsuccessful NFL teams.

10. I think these are my non-football thoughts of the week:

a. If I had one wish for ESPN (well, this wouldn’t be the one, I guess, but it would be in the top 10), I would wish its anchors would stop saying Team X “punched their ticket” for the NCAA tournament. First: Team X would have “punched its ticket.” Second: Well, it’s a brutal cliché.

What a country.

b. I live in New York. I can’t name one active Knick.

You admit to not watching the NBA. The fact you can't name one active Knick probably speaks to your distaste for the NBA as much as it speaks to the anonymity of the Knicks players. I do like how Peter is viewing the Knicks relevance through the lens of how much he knows about the team. This is something sportswriters love to do. They don't watch or enjoy a sport/team, so obviously that sport/team isn't relevant anymore. Why wouldn't Peter's worldview speak to the relevance of a sport or team?

c. Knicks versus Lakers on Thursday night. Looked at the box score Friday morning. Never heard of any of the 10 starters in the game.

Again, you don't really watch college basketball or the NBA.

f. A few random college basketball observations:

Wish you wouldn't. Do this. Ever.

i. What a weekend for Notre Dame, beating Duke and North Carolina on back-to-back days in the state of North Carolina.

It was in North Carolina, but it helps the Duke fans in the crowd were cheering for Notre Dame and the UNC fans in the crowd were cheering for Notre Dame. The game being played in North Carolina is an advantage until the fans of one North Carolina-based team choose to cheer against another North Carolina-based team. It's not always an advantage to play in North Carolina in certain situations. After being defeated by Notre Dame, Duke fans in attendance were openly cheering for Notre Dame against UNC.

k. Four conferences played their tourneys in Vegas? What a country.

Stop writing "what a country."

n. This Cuban baseball player stuff is really crazy. Crazier than NFL free-agent money. Boston paid $133 million to sign Rusney Castillo and 19-year-old Yoan Moncada, with limited scouting opportunities of them. It’s got to be sports’ version of Russian Roulette.

All of a sudden when the Red Sox start signing Cuban players Peter starts to notice how crazy it is that MLB teams sign these Cuban players without knowing a ton about them. Hey Peter, MLB teams have been signing players from overseas, while having limited opportunities to scout these players, for over a decade now. I know! It's amazing this didn't start when the Red Sox started spending money on Cuban players.

The Adieu Haiku

I like lots of trades.  
The NFL’s not like that.
Kudos, Chip Kelly.


Chip Kelly can make all kinds of trades without having to ask anyone's permission. What a country. 

Friday, December 12, 2014

4 comments Matt Kemp Was On the Trade Block And Steve Dilbeck and Bill Plaschke Were Incredulous This Could Happen; Then Kemp Got Traded And Shit Got Real

I wrote this post about Bill Plaschke and Steve Dilbeck's reaction to Matt Kemp being dangled as trade bait. Then, Kemp got traded the next day so I updated it with Plaschke and Dilbeck's reactions to this trade. You won't believe this, but they are critical of Andrew Friedman.

Matt Kemp is 29 years old. He hit .287/.346/.506 last season with 25 home runs and 87 RBI's. He was part of a four-man outfield that the Dodgers were actively looking to make a three-man outfield, so his name was appearing in trade rumors. Kemp may be the most talented outfielder the Dodgers had (or at least second best depending on your view of Yasiel Puig), so it did and didn't make sense to dangle him in a trade. Kemp is owed $107.5 million over the next five years, so the Dodgers aren't necessarily cutting payroll, but could definitely freed up some payroll by trading Kemp while getting good prospects in return. Still, Bill Plaschke and Steve Dilbeck are not happy Kemp's name had popped up in trade rumors prior to being traded. Full disclosure: These two are going to hate everything the Dodgers do because they don't like Sabermetrics and they think that's all Andrew Friedman is going to use to evaluate baseball players. So no matter happens, they will criticize moves the Dodgers make because they hate the Dodgers' GM and how he evaluates players.

Bill Plaschke goes first on why even mentioning Kemp's name in trade talks is a huge mistake. (This was prior to Kemp being traded)

This column should not have to be written. The truths here should go without saying. Any Dodgers fan will understand it implicitly.

But these out-of-towners are running the baseball operations in Chavez Ravine these days, 

Ned Colletti was from Chicago. He worked for the Cubs and then the San Francisco Giants. He was an out-of-towner too. Carry on with your mindless bashing...

they don't yet know the pulse of the dugout, they haven't learned the heartbeat of the clubhouse, 

Two paragraphs in and we already have the first reference to Friedman sitting high upon a tower of statistics unable to understand what happens in a dugout. Friedman worked with Joe Maddon in Tampa Bay so I really doubt he has no idea how a dugout works.

So listen up, new guys.

You don't trade Matt Kemp.

You do if it improves the team. You don't make players on a team sacred cows. That's how mediocrity happens.

You don't trade the one man whose bat can change the complexion of the team from beige to red. You don't trade the one guy who can transform the lineup from stilted to swaggering.

The Dodgers are definitely not trading Adrian Gonzalez or Yasiel Puig. Don't worry about that, Bill.

(And, of course, you don't trade the only guy willing to publicly call out Yasiel Puig during the middle of a game, but that's another story.)

Yes, Matt Kemp was one of the few Dodgers who was willing to take on the monster that is Yasiel Puig. For that, Bill Plaschke will be eternally grateful. Yasiel Puig isn't a very good baseball player, he is a cancer just waiting to ruin the Dodgers postseason chances.

When Matt Kemp is right, the Dodgers offense is right,

The same can be said about Yasiel Puig.

He had 17 home runs and 49 runs batted in over the final two months of the season, and had a .365 on-base percentage in the second half. In September, he had nine homers and 25 RBIs.

Yasiel Puig hit .398/.492/.731 during the month of May when the Dodgers were 15-15. Obviously this is all his fault. Puig hit .351/.425/.688 during the month of July and the Dodgers were 14-10. It's clear that Puig can't lift his teammates up like Matt Kemp can. By the way, Puig had a .366 on-base percentage in the second half. Just remember this while Plaschke brags about Kemp's second-half revival.

It's easy to blame everyone in uniform for the postseason debacle, but Kemp was not the reason the Dodgers lost to the St. Louis Cardinals.

Matt Kemp didn't bring the Dodgers down when he was struggling in the first half of the season, not at all, he is only responsible for lifting the Dodgers up when he plays well. This is as opposed to Yasiel Puig who brings the Dodgers down no matter what he does.

The new guys will surely talk to players who said that Kemp can be a clubhouse irritant, loud and abrasive.

If only there were a player willing to publicly call out Matt Kemp during the middle of a game like Matt Kemp would do. If only...

But when he's going well, it's a happy, even inspirational noise.

Players say that Kemp is a clubhouse irritant and Bill Plaschke says, "But it's a good irritant and the players who aren't annoyed by Kemp think it's an inspirational noise."

Players say that Puig is a clubhouse irritant and Bill Plaschke says, "This is why Yasiel Puig needs to be benched or traded. When he's going well, it's a happy noise that bothers everyone."

The question isn't what kind noise Kemp makes when he's going good, but what he's like when he is going bad? Isn't that what writers tend to focus on with Yasiel Puig at all times? What a distraction and danger to the Dodgers team he is? Why does Plaschke only focus on Kemp's impact in the locker room when he is playing well? Of course Plaschke has an agenda and wants to separate Kemp from Puig, so this seems to be his attempt to do so.

(I don't mean to keep harping on the Puig comparison, but Plaschke brought it up and he has written many negative things about Puig in the past year. This includes talking about how Puig is a clubhouse cancer and a bomb on the field just waiting to explode and ruin the very existence of the Dodgers franchise)

The team fed off that sound at the end of last season, and there's no reason for the Dodgers to suddenly silence it now.

No word on what would happen to the Dodgers clubhouse if Kemp got injured or started struggling.

Even Kemp's grumbling about playing left field has stopped. His agent, Junior Spivey, confirmed to The Times' Dylan Hernandez this week that Kemp is no longer demanding a return to center field.

Oh, Kemp will be forgiven under the Michael Young Rule? It's fine to demand a trade or complain about your position as long as you eventually take it back and become a team player after throwing a hissy-fit. Imagine if Puig had complained about his position. I doubt forgiveness from Bill would come so easily.

Kemp is a proud man who felt he was being embarrassed in an unfamiliar position, but now that he's hitting again, that embarrassment is gone.

But again, what happens if he stops hitting? Plaschke tries to avoid this issue because he knows it leads him down a road where it's more difficult to differentiate Kemp from a guy who causes a bad atmosphere in the clubhouse. Always with the agendas.

Obviously, the new guys have holes to fill, and Kemp is the easiest way to fill them. He could be used to pick up a top starting pitcher, or a shortstop and a catcher, or any combination of the three with a veteran reliever tossed in. Just as obviously, the Dodgers have an outfield surplus, and Kemp is the most obvious way to try to improve while reducing the clutter.

Yes and yes. Kemp makes a lot of money and he brought a decent return in a trade. Therefore he is the one on the trade block. Other MLB teams don't want Andre Ethier or Carl Crawford, and if they did, the Dodgers certainly wouldn't get the return for these players that they could get for Kemp.

One problem. At this stage in their careers, the combination of Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford can't come close to matching Kemp's impact.

Possibly not, but the hope is that the players the Dodgers get back in the trade for Kemp could improve the Dodgers at another position either in the short or long-term. That was the purpose of dangling Kemp out as trade bait.

And who knows what you're going to get out of the kid Joc Pederson, or even that bigger kid named Puig.

Nice shot at Puig. Who knows what the Dodgers would get from Kemp? Would it be the guy who struggled in the first half of the 2014 season? The guy who played great in the second half of the 2014 season? Would it be the MVP-caliber Kemp or the injured 2012 and 2013 version of Kemp? Plaschke works hard to paint Pederson and Puig as unknowns, but Kemp is an unknown too. The last few years of his career haven't exactly been consistent.

Puig hit four homers with 17 RBIs after the All-Star break last season before striking out eight times in 12 postseason at-bats. There is an equal chance of his upcoming season being either breakout or breakdown.

Guess what? It's the same thing with Matt Kemp. Don't lie and pretend this isn't true. Matt Kemp has been injured in two of the last three seasons, but way to create an alternate reality where Kemp is the picture of reliable.

If Bill wants to talk strikeouts, Matt Kemp struck out 145 times in 541 at-bats this season, while Puig struck out 124 times in 558 at-bats. I like how Plaschke uses the small sample size of the postseason as if it extrapolates over the entire season, but that's just not true.

It's impossible to guess, and the new guys shouldn't try.

Yes, don't even try. Because Puig's performance is unpredictable, like 99% of major league players, so just give him on him. That makes sense.

Kemp hit six homers in 148 at-bats against lefties, a pace that would make him almost twice as effective as the rest of the team's power hitters combined. 

This is impressive compared to the other hitters on the Dodgers' team, but given that comes out to about 24 home runs against left-handed pitchers over 600 at-bats, it's not exactly super power-slugging numbers for a right-handed hitter. Not to mention, the Dodgers shouldn't have turned down a trade offer for Kemp because they are concerned they won't have power against late-inning left-handers. That seems short-sighted.

Pederson isn't included in that first group because, well, in seven plate appearances he is still waiting for his first career hit against a left-hander.

Clearly this is the sign that Joc Pederson is a bust. I guess that's the takeaway from this comment.

There has been talk at this week's winter meetings about Kemp being traded to the San Diego Padres for catcher Yasmani Grandal — seriously — but one of the new guys told reporters Tuesday that this deal was not close.

And Piggy, it's rude to call them "the new guys." Show a little respect or at least use their name as opposed to calling them "the new guys" simply because you are too old and lazy to learn the new information they use as just a part of their player evaluation.

Good. Let's keep it that way.

The new guys

This is going to continuously annoy me. Andrew Friedman is not new at his position. He is new in town, but so was the great Ned Colletti at some point.

certainly cannot be blamed for listening to offers for the 30-year-old Kemp and a contract that will pay him $107 million for the next five years.

Then Bill Plaschke wrote an entire column (this one) blaming the Dodgers and Friedman for listening to offers. In Bill's senile, ESPN-influenced mind I am sure this makes sense. 

"The Dodgers can't be blamed for listening to offers for Matt Kemp. I will now blame them for listening to offers for Matt Kemp."

For most of his nine seasons in a Dodgers uniform, Kemp has pretty much driven everyone crazy, particularly this columnist, who has suggested both that the Dodgers trade him and keep him — sometimes in the same column.

But since a new evil arrived in the form of Yasiel Puig, all of a sudden Matt Kemp is an angel and a great guy to have in the clubhouse when he is playing well. Matt Kemp used to be an asshole in the clubhouse, but Bill can only hate one Dodgers player at a time, so he will wax poetic about what a great clubhouse guy Kemp is in certain situations while bashing "the new guys" and Puig.

The championship window is closing fast on the core of this Dodgers group. 

Speaking of that championship window, here is what Plaschke wrote after the Dodgers lost in the 2014 playoffs. Never forget.

The failure was something much broader, much deeper, and much more evident in the Dodgers words than even their play. This was a 94-win team that was favored by many to traipse through October on its way to the World Series, yet their journey lasted all of five days. This was the ugliest postseason elimination for this franchise in 29 years, since the Cardinals did this to them in the 1985 National League Championship Series.

The team with the richest payroll in baseball history turned out to be a beautifully detailed Cadillac without any tires, a $240-million clunker that couldn't even finish the first October lap.

This is the Dodgers team that Bill claims has a "championship window." The same team he is referring to as a $240-million clunker. Yep, Plaschke can't keep a consistent opinion. 

The failure continues with the baseball people, and that means General Manager Ned Colletti, who sat on a couch in the clubhouse early Friday evening and winced.

The failure continued with the same GM that Plaschke now bemoans was fired and replaced with Andrew Friedman. But yeah, back in October when the Dodgers were underachieving, those were the good old days.

Colletti will take most of the heat here for failure to work within his bosses' philosophical constraints to somehow put together a group of decent relief pitchers.

Rip them when they are here, bemoan their absence when they are gone.

Why does this rich and powerful team so often play selfishly and distracted, particularly under pressure? Why are they, you know, the anti-Cardinals?

This is the "championship window" that Plaschke is now referring to. The same "championship window" that didn't seem to exist two short months ago.

And throughout the series there was a visible lack of Dodgers leadership on the field when pitchers were struggling or Kemp was arguing with umpire Dale Scott, and nearly bumping him, all by himself.

But it was a GOOD arguing and bumping that inspired the Dodgers. Kemp was showing a lack of leadership at the time, but now that he is gone he was a saint in the clubhouse.

And in a too-little-too-late move, he strangely benched Yasiel Puig on Tuesday, which meant Ethier had to make his fourth start in a month in the biggest game of the year. Little wonder Ethier ended the Dodgers' only scoring rally in the sixth inning by getting lost off third base.

Yasiel Puig is in some way partly responsible for Andre Ethier getting lost off third base.

No need to cut up the season, the Cardinals did that for them, once again leaving the Dodgers in sad little blue-stained pieces on their perfectly manicured turf with the arch cut into the outfield, the team that does everything right again triumphing over a team gone wrong.

Does that sound like a writer who believes the Dodgers have a championship window? So as suspected, Plaschke is taking part in some revisionist history. Back to the current day (and column) before Kemp got traded, back when Kemp was a saint and not showing a lack of leadership by arguing with umpires.

Despite his great numbers, Gonzalez appears to be slowing;

And Matt Kemp is three years from being the same age as Gonzalez, when he would start slowing down (especially given his injury history), and have two years left on his contract. I feel this needs to be mentioned.

Uribe is aging; the bullpen behind Kenley Jansen is weathered; Zack Greinke can opt out of his contract after next summer; and who knows how long Clayton Kershaw can physically handle being baseball's best pitcher.

This could be the last season that this collection of players can seriously contend for a title. 

It depends on what your definition of "seriously contend for a title" means. Did the Dodgers seriously contend for a title last year? They didn't make it out of the NLDS. Isn't the fact Plaschke just listed three important Dodgers players who are declining a good reason to trade an asset like Kemp, or at least look into his value, in order to bring on players who aren't declining and keep that championship window open just a little while longer?

If the new guys truly want to win right now, which the Los Angeles market demands in a way that the new guys never experienced in St. Petersburg or Oakland, they will try to win it with Matt Kemp.

So then what was Plaschke's solution for the four-man outfield the Dodgers have? Other than trade Puig of course. I know that's the first option. It's so annoying that Plaschke is pretending like Kemp's performance isn't a question mark, even as he described how Kemp struggled for the first half of the season.

But then, the unthinkable happened, and the Dodgers traded Matt Kemp. Bill Plaschke is very displeased. 

The Dodgers are no longer a reflection of two playoff appearances in two seasons. They are no longer a symbol of a Guggenheim rebirth that led to a league-leading attendance of 3.7 million.

Everything is over now. The Dodgers are rebuilding by opening up an outfield position and upgrading at second base and shortstop. That's definitely the sign of a team not interested in making the playoffs.

They are no longer connected to anything, it seems, but one man who appears intent on blowing them up.

The Dodgers made changes to a team that Bill felt was flawed. Oh my gracious, what will Bill do?

Bringing in Jimmy Rollins to play shortstop was smart. Trading Dee Gordon at the probable peak of his value was savvy. Replacing him with Howie Kendrick was sound.

But the Matt Kemp trade was nuts.

It wasn't the best trade, I will admit that, but it had it's reasons. Kemp couldn't always be counted on to be healthy and he isn't quite the leader (as Bill has admitted) that Plaschke desperately wants to paint him as now.

It is not a trade when you give the other team $32 million to take the guy. It is not a trade when the only proven major leaguer acquired is a .225-hitting catcher who threw out 13% of baserunners and has been suspended for use of performance-enhancing drugs.

It is a trade when you only pay $32 million of a $107 million contract. Grandal was suspended almost two years ago and using only batting average doesn't show what an upgrade he will be for the Dodgers at the catcher position. He's a switch-hitting catcher who has power and gets on-base at a decent clip. He's not Johnny Bench, but Matt Kemp also isn't Roberto Clemente.

it's a salary dump by owners stinging from the losses incurred by that lousy television deal.

It's a salary dump that allows the Dodgers to upgrade at second base, trade for a shortstop, and improve the rotation that Plaschke claims hurt the Dodgers in the playoffs. Looking at the trade purely from the perspective of a single transaction it may not make sense. Looking at the trade as part of a plan, it makes a little more sense. Plaschke isn't interested in doing anything but bashing Friedman though.

The Dodgers obviously felt that at age 30 and with his injury history, Kemp may have peaked. He may never again be an outstanding outfielder. He isn't always great in the clubhouse.

And he was only owed $21.5 million every year for the next five years. Why did the Dodgers dare to trade Kemp? It's certainly a mystery. It's a risk, but contrary to what he would have you believe, Plaschke didn't think the Dodgers were a complete team back in October. He didn't think they were a team on the very cusp of a World Series title.

But didn't we also hear some of those same things back in 1998 about a 29-year-old Dodgers slugger who had also seemingly peaked? Guy by the name of Mike Piazza.

You mean the trade that brought Gary Sheffield, Bobby Bonilla, and Charles Johnson to the Dodgers? The same Charles Johnson that netted the Dodgers two really good years of Todd Hundley in a separate trade? Yeah, that ended up being a terrible trade. Gary Sheffield was a bum.

Kemp's numbers will most likely decline in spacious Petco Park, but that won't compensate for the giant right-handed power hole he left in a lineup where the cleanup hitter is now … Kendrick?

Or Adrian Gonzalez or Puig could be the cleanup hitter. Not sure why Plaschke thinks Kendrick would be the guy.

About that defense, Friedman is taking a huge risk that Joc Pederson is ready to play center field after a difficult stay in Chavez Ravine last September.

Buster Posey struggled initially when he was called up. It doesn't mean a hell of a lot in the long run if a young player struggles when initially called up to the majors.

Friedman's other move this week, essentially trading pitcher Dan Haren for free-agent pitcher Brandon McCarthy, doesn't seem to noticeably help a team that seems no better right now than at the end of last season.

You mean the part where Friedman traded a pitcher who may retire and then signed a very similar pitcher who is three years younger? Friedman spent $48 million on McCarthy! Wasn't Plaschke just accusing Friedman of dumping salary?

Impressively, the new guy isn't afraid of the heat. Friedman returned a phone call even though he knew I would be criticizing the Kemp trade.

That is impressive that Friedman isn't too scared to talk to the big scary Bill Plaschke on the phone. Clearly, Bill Plaschke has a much higher opinion of himself than anyone else does. Is Andrew Friedman supposed to be scared of Bill Plaschke or something? Sounds like Bill is pretty self-involved.

He was asked if he understood how quickly the increasingly impatient Dodgers fans will turn on him if the Kemp trade doesn't work.

No Bill, he doesn't understand this. Please explain it to him like he's an idiot. Because obviously Andrew Friedman doesn't understand how to do his job and has zero experience with impatient fans.

He was asked if he understood how, just a couple of months into his journey, he was already treading in the sort of deep water not found off the shores of St. Petersburg.

How condescending. If Plaschke is talking about Friedman treading in deep water in terms of being the one leading the Dodgers to the same place that he has already led the Rays to, then yes, I think Friedman gets it. See, the Rays have had success under Friedman. I'm not sure why Plaschke can't grasp this concept. He seems to think only in Los Angeles is success expected. Friedman comes from an MLB team that couldn't draw a crowd even when the team was a success. Success was essential in Tampa Bay because they were a low-market team that had a hard time drawing a crowd.

"We are incredibly passionate about what we do, and we certainly understand and appreciate the fan's passion, and that's part of the motivating factor for us," Friedman said.

THEN WHY DID YOU TRADE A PLAYER FROM A TEAM THAT BILL PLASCHKE THOUGHT WAS FLAWED BUT HE'S NOW GOING TO PRETEND HE DIDN'T THINK THAT?

The only position that concerns Dodgers fans would be a spot in the World Series for the first time in 27 years.

This being something that Bill Plaschke intentionally didn't mention, but Andrew Friedman has led a team to the World Series. So he has experience getting his team a spot in the World Series.

Two years ago, they were two victories from that spot. With Kemp gone, they're not getting any closer.

As part of his agenda to mislead readers, guess who wasn't a part of that team that was two victories from the World Series? A gentleman by the name of Matt Kemp. So the Dodgers aren't closer to the World Series without Kemp, even though they got close to the World Series two years ago without Matt Kemp. So, the Dodgers can get there without him. But hey, Plaschke has an agenda and he will be damned if reality messes with the fiction he is writing.

Now Steve Dilbeck will become incredulous at the idea of entertaining trade offers for Matt Kemp. Here is what Dilbeck wrote before Kemp was traded.

The Dodgers want to move an outfielder, maybe two, and the one getting the most attention is Matt Kemp? The Baltimore Orioles, San Diego Padres, Texas Rangers and Seattle Mariners have all reportedly expressed serious interest in Kemp.

Yes, one of the better outfielders the Dodgers have was receiving interest on the trade market. I know, it's shocking that other teams would want to trade for a good player and not Dilbeck's hero, Andre Ethier, but that's the state of baseball right now. Math nerds running teams want to trade for good baseball players, not slightly above average ones who will be 33 years old next year. 

Now, if you’re the Dodgers, sure, you listen. That’s basic due diligence. But unless they’re just blown away by an offer, there should be no way Kemp is the one moved.

I have a feeling Steve is not going to be impressed with Yasmani Grandal as part of the return for Kemp. Of course, trading Kemp also opened up payroll to improve the shortstop and second base position, along with signing Brandon McCarthy, but everything Andrew Friedman does is wrong so I'm sure those were dumb moves.

The Dodgers “lost” free agent Hanley Ramirez to the Boston Red Sox after the shortstop signed a jaw-dropping $88-million deal. They can’t really afford to lose the only other real right-handed power in the lineup. Certainly you’re not going to count on the streaky Yasiel Puig, who hit exactly one home run in a 54-game stretch from June 5 to Sept. 15?

It always comes back to Puig. Always. The good news is that Jimmy Rollins hit 17 home runs last year and Grandal hit 15 home runs. That's 32 home runs in the lineup right there while two positions have been improved. Great success!

Since ownership is so blindly in love with Puig (corrected: can opt into arbitration after three years of major league service time),

Yes, how dare ownership keep an eye on costs and trade away a 30 year old outfielder with five years left on a $100+ million-plus contract in favor of keeping the young player with a higher ceiling. Dumb move.

What's really funny is that Dilbeck is just like Bill Plaschke. He's going to criticize Andrew Friedman no matter what. If Friedman spends money, they will say that Friedman comes from a small market team and has no idea how to handle big contracts for a "real" team. If Friedman cuts salaries they will say that cutting salary is the very opposite of what a team on the very, very cusp of a World Series title needs to do. Both will forget that the Royals were in the World Series last year and the Dodgers couldn't get out of the NLDS while spending the most money in the majors. If Friedman spends money, he doesn't know what he's doing. If Friedman doesn't spend money then he is going cheap and ruining a title contender.

So if they’re seriously listening to offers for Kemp, they must be finding a nothing market for Andre Ethier and Carl Crawford.

Or a market where the return isn't close to being worth trading either player.

It’s impossible to reject a trade when you unaware of what’s included, but it is unlikely another team is going to include some can’t-miss prospect for Kemp.

Grandal is a pretty good catcher who is only 26 years old. Joe Wieland is young, but hasn't torn up the majors in his limited time and Zach Eflin pitched pretty well in the minors last year and is (depending on who you believe) the #12-#16 prospect for the Padres (of course he's getting traded for Rollins). It's not a massive haul, but the Padres are also eating about $75 million of Kemp's salary.

As excited as fans are over the way Kemp finished last season (.306, 20 homers, 70 runs batted in, 23 doubles in his last 92 games), there are still all those injuries and struggles the previous two seasons.

Right. And there is also the fact that he is the most expensive outfielder the Dodgers have and they have Joc Pederson waiting to play centerfield. So really, the Dodgers had five outfielders and they didn't feel they could rely on Kemp enough to keep him. In fact, Dilbeck himself recently argued for consistency in the Dodgers outfield over a player who has struggled. So now that Kemp is gone, there is only one Dodgers outfielder Dilbeck can hate, Yasiel Puig, which means he can put all of his effort into hating Puig.

So if you’re not going to get some serious phenom in return, why trade Kemp? There’s zero power available in free agency and it’s becoming rarer in this post-steroids era.

I do agree with this statement. Power is becoming a rare commodity. Fortunately, the Dodgers still hope that Puig can find some of the power he lost last year, Grandal has power for a catcher, and Adrian Gonzalez still exists on the Dodgers' roster.

I repeat: The unreliable, typically dour and frequently injured Ramirez just signed for $88 million for four years. Kemp’s owed $106 million over the next five and he’s a year younger. People who assume there is no way Kemp could get an equal contract if he were a free agent now, best look at Ramirez.

So Steve Dilbeck's reasoning for why the Dodgers shouldn't have traded Matt Kemp is because if Kemp were a free agent then a team would overpay for him? Who cares what Kemp could get on the open market? Kemp's value on the open market doesn't mean he is worth $21 million to the Dodgers anymore. The Dodgers didn't trade Kemp because they thought he wasn't worth $21 million, but because they had other options in the outfield and didn't feel Kemp could be relied upon. He was worth more to them as a trade asset to fill other spots on the roster that need improvement, while opening up room in the outfield for Puig, Ethier, Pederson, and Crawford to play.

The real unknown here is the Geek Squad.

You are such a fucking hack. At least pretend like you aren't going to spend the rest of your years writing for the "Times" bashing Friedman and Zaidi for daring to have ideas that you don't have the energy to try and understand.

New President of Baseball Operations Andrew Friedman, General Manager Farhan Zaidi and Senior Vice President of Baseball Operations Josh Byrnes all come from small market clubs. They’re playing with real money for the first time in their careers. They supposedly think outside the traditional baseball box.

As I wrote earlier, Dilbeck and Plaschke are going to bash them no matter what they do. If Friedman cuts salary just a little bit then he is trying to run the Dodgers like a small market team, if Friedman signs players to big contracts then he is playing with real money and probably won't know how to handle it. It all goes back to the fact Dilbeck and Plaschke just don't like the ideas (and roster-building strategies) of Andrew Friedman.

But this Dodgers’ team is built to win it all, right now. It won 94 games last year, and it was considered a disappointing season.

So why not take the exact team, minus Hanley Ramirez and a year older at every position, then try to see if that same team can disappoint again? IT MAKES SENSE! Do what was done in the past and hope it gets a different result this time. What could go wrong?

In reality, the Dodgers were a team with flaws. They traded Dee Gordon at the peak of his value, needed more pitching and had too many outfielders. If Friedman had made no changes to the roster then Dilbeck would have written, "Friedman and his Geek Squad was supposed to come in and shake up the roster, but all he delivered was the same results as before." Then Dilbeck would have other derogatory comments about Friedman and how not changing the roster was a mistake. This is what happens when there are sportswriters who write with an agenda.

They want to shed some contract, they’d best do it while remembering their primary charge is to win now. And logic says, that should include Kemp.

Maybe, but logic also says to use a trade asset in a crowded outfield to improve other spots on the roster like shortstop and catcher that needed improving. The Dodgers essentially managed to trade Dee Gordon for a better second baseman. That's a move to win now.

And now here is Dilbeck's reaction to the Dodgers trading away Kemp. 

I'm going to miss Matt Kemp. That may come as a shock to many -- particularly Matt Kemp -- but in truth he became my favorite Dodger.

Kemp became Dilbeck's favorite Dodger just as soon as he learned Andrew Friedman was going to put Kemp on the trade block. A chance to criticize Friedman appeared and then Kemp became Dilbeck's favorite Dodger. Anything to criticize the Geek Squad.

Kemp could be self-centered, but mostly he was upbeat and like a happy kid in the clubhouse. Certainly he had his moments, but I would never describe him as some clubhouse cancer.

I am trying to think of another Dodger who is upbeat, self-centered and like a happy kid, but has been referred to as a clubhouse cancer. Hmmm...I can't think of his name.

Yeah, he enjoyed the spotlight. Loved the attention and celebrities and the whole glamour thing. That’s not the worst thing, though sometimes there seemed too much effort in looking cool on a play and not enough hustling his butt off.

But now the Dodgers have a cheaper, younger version of Kemp in the form of Yasiel Puig! It's a win for them.

He brought excitement to the plate, which is a rare quality these days, and one now missing from the Dodgers lineup.

Again, I would argue Puig brings this. I seem to recall a lot of excitement surrounding Puig when he is at the plate. This quality is still present in the Dodgers lineup.

In truth, Kemp had a problem with me. He refused to explain it. Maybe it was one too many snarky comments or he didn’t like my questions or that I had him second in the MVP voting in 2011 or he just didn’t understand the difference between straight newspaper reporting and the commentary awarded to a blog.

Well Steve, I'm just glad you were able to bring yourself into his story. It's important when reading your take on the Kemp trade that you become a part of the story.

I was not there, and players had nominated several scribes when Kemp announced he knew exactly who he would do a piece on, but struggled to come up with my name. My feelings have recovered. He described me as gray hair with glasses and slightly hefty. The scribes were throwing out various names when one finally said “Dilbeck” and Kemp lit up and said, “Yeah, that’s the one!”

To which my close Times comrade, peer and ex-friend, Dylan Hernandez, shouted: “Why didn’t you just say the old, fat (guy)?”

But see, Kemp didn’t go there. Even for a scribe he would just as soon see transferred to another beat, he could not bring himself to say anything derogatory. And so, he became my favorite Dodger.

So if anyone is ever wondering whether newspaper guys play favorites among players based on their relationship with these players, look no further. Matt Kemp didn't say something about Dilbeck that was derogatory, so regardless of Kemp's play on the field, Dilbeck was willing to overlook Kemp's injuries, slight pouting and mental errors to have his back when the evil Andrew Friedman traded Kemp.

Maybe Yasiel Puig should start to hate Steve Dilbeck, but then refuse to be derogatory behind Steve's back, and Dilbeck will love him forever because of this. 

In the short term, he will likely make the Dodgers pay for this trade. Down the road, maybe he physically breaks down again and the Dodgers look good for this odd deal.

For today, however, I am privately left without a favorite Dodger.

Well, the trade was about you and not the long-term well-being of the Dodgers, so feel free to rip into Andrew Friedman for it.

And six hours after posting this previous column, Dilbeck does just that.

Think the Dodgers have done a masterful job of shaking up a team that won 94 games last season? That the franchise's very own numbers crunchers have put together a team ready to take that step to the World Series?

We won't know until the season begins. You know, like happens every other MLB season.

Unsure, are you? Thinking it best not to be prematurely all judgmental? Have no fear, that’s what bloggers are for.

It's impossible to know how offseason moves will play out. What's ridiculous is Dilbeck isn't really evaluating the moves Andrew Friedman made, he is basically thinking of reasons to criticize Friedman because he doesn't like statistical evaluation of players.

I fear for their future.

But that happened the second the Dodgers hired Andrew Friedman, so it really means nothing.

There’s still another starting pitcher to nab and probably an Andre Ethier still to trade.

But the Dodgers' 2015 lineup appears pretty set and will probably look something like this:

Jimmy Rollins (shortstop), Carl Crawford (left), Yasiel Puig (right), Adrian Gonzalez (first), Howie Kendrick (second), Juan Uribe (third), Joc Pederson (center), Yasmani Grandal/A.J. Ellis (catcher).

That’s a very nice lineup. It just doesn’t look like a lineup for the most expensive team in baseball, 

And fuck winning a World Series title, the title of the most expensive team in baseball is what the Dodgers really need to win.

which is what the Dodgers will probably still be when all this is done.

That's a relief. I enjoy how Dilbeck seems to want the Dodgers to continue spending money, but he is upset that Friedman has spent money on Brandon McCarthy.

Are they better defensively with Rollins and Kendrick up the middle? Absolutely. Will they be improved in center with phenom Pederson, Crawford in left and Puig back in right? No question.

And they’d better be, because they are unlikely to score as many runs with Matt Kemp, Hanley Ramirez and Dee Gordon all gone.

Has Dilbeck seen Howie Kendrick and Jimmy Rollins play? Rollins and Kendrick drove in 130 runs and scored 163 runs last year. Hanley Ramirez and Dee Gordon drove in 105 runs and scored 156 runs last year. Matt Kemp scored 77 runs and drove in 89 runs. So the replacement(s) for Kemp would have to score 52 runs and drive in 82 runs in order to replace Kemp/Ramirez/Gordon's production. I think scoring the runs shouldn't be too difficult, but it will be hard to find 82 RBI's between Ethier and Pederson. Otherwise, it's not quite as bad as Dilbeck is trying to make it.

That’s all they could get for Kemp -- Grandal, right-hander Joe Wieland and another pitcher, possibly right-hander Zach Eflin? Plus, they threw in at least $30 million? A part-time catcher who was busted for steroids in 2012, a pitcher coming off two elbow surgeries (including Tommy John) and a prospect they are expected to send to Philly for Rollins?

Grandal was busted two years ago for steroids and his calling Grandal "part-time" is a bit misleading considering he had 377 at-bats last year for the Padres. The return for Kemp isn't massive, but the Padres are also covering about $75 million of Kemp's deal.

And that would be Rollins who has one-year left on his contract. Actually three-fourths of the Dodgers’ infield (Uribe, Kendrick, Rollins) will be on the last year of their deals. Plus, they’re all at least 31. What was this about getting younger?

Steve Dilbeck out of one side of his mouth: "Doesn't Andrew Friedman understand this team is built to win now? These trades don't accomplish that!"

Steve Dilbeck out of the other side of his mouth: "Aren't the Dodgers supposed to be getting younger? Why are they signing all of these veterans in order to win now?"

Can't have it both ways friend. You can't want the Dodgers to compete now while also complaining the team isn't getting younger. With the position the Dodgers are in, it's very hard to do both in one offseason.

Gordon was under their control for the next four years. Kendrick could be gone after next season and Rollins is expected to be a one-year stopgap until Corey Seager is ready. The Dodgers really have no in the system to replace Uribe or Kendrick.

And apparently they have no money either, so they couldn't re-sign either player? After all, Rollins' money is off their payroll next year and the Dodgers just opened up some money by trading Kemp that they could use to find a replacement for Uribe or Kendrick if they choose not to re-sign one or both. It's hilarious how short-sighted sportswriters get when they want to further their own agenda. Dilbeck is acting like trading Kemp didn't free up some money for the 2016 season and the Dodgers won't have the option of re-signing Uribe and/or Kendrick. 

They also signed Brandon McCarthy (10-15, 4.05 ERA, 1.28 WHIP last season, who may be an upgrade over Dan Haren (13-11, 4.02, 1.18), but not a $48-million upgrade. Yet the Dodgers wanted rid of Haren so badly, they sent $10 million along in the deal to cover his 2015 salary whether he retires or not (OK, so a $38-million upgrade)

And for him and Gordon, they got back prospect Andrew Heaney, reliever Chris Hatcher, utility man Enrique Hernandez, and minor league catcher Austin Barnes from the Marlins. I’m so underwhelmed. They’re all fine prospects, but only Heaney was highly regarded, and they flipped him for Kendrick.

It doesn't matter if Dilbeck is underwhelmed. I would bet he doesn't know much about these prospects the Dodgers received.

Hatcher is a 29 year old relief pitcher (which is an area of need for the Dodgers) who appeared in 58 games last year and had a 3.38 ERA and 1.196 WHIP.

Hernandez is a 23 year old utility player who combined for 98 games at AA and AAA last year with a line of .319/.372/.484 and 11 home runs. He walked 31 times and struck out 41 times.

Barnes is a 24 year old catcher, second baseman, third baseman who combined for 122 games at A+ and AA last year with a line of .304/.398/.472 and 13 home runs. He walked 69 times and struck out 61 times.

It seems like it's an underwhelming return for Dee Gordon but Hernandez and Barnes are versatile and can hit, while Hatcher seems to have pitched pretty well last year.

Today the Dodgers look improved defensively. But without a dramatic lineup. Guess all their drama was left in San Diego’s winter meetings.

And that's what it is really all about. Drama. We all know there's no way an MLB team can win the World Series without having a ton of powerful hitters up and down their lineup. Only really powerful teams can win the World Series.

I'd probably be more open to Dilbeck's criticism if he obviously didn't have an agenda against the members of the Dodgers organization he calls "The Geek Squad."