Showing posts with label obvious criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label obvious criticism. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

9 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Wrote that Depression is a Character Flaw, But Don't Worry He Apologized So It's All Better Now

Peter King stalked a woman on a running trail last week in MMQB. I'm overstating what happened. He didn't stalk her. He just ran behind her for a mile and listened to her conversation while eagerly trying to remember what she was talking about. That's totally different from stalking. It's like eavesdropping, which is so much better. Peter got ready for the 2015 NFL Draft that had no consensus top players, unlike yet very much like, NFL Drafts in the past. Peter insisted there was a consensus #1 pick last year, yet I showed where Peter didn't even mock Clowney to the Texans three days before the start of the 2014 NFL Draft. This week Peter talks about THE CRAZIEST DRAFT IN THE HISTORY OF DRAFTS, how the Buccaneers didn't talk themselves into Jameis Winston, talks about the best moves (moves regarding players whose names Peter had heard of) and worst moves (moves that Peter didn't understand based on his knowing for a fact when all the players were going to be taken), and Peter enjoyed the Clippers-Spurs series even though (DID YOU KNOW THIS?) he's not a basketball fan.

Pick up the Tampa Bay Times, and see a huge photo of Jameis Winston in a red Bucs cap surrounded by nine blaring all-caps words:
 

Bring the paper to One Buc Place, where the team has its offices and practice facility. Winston is resplendent in a black suit, black tie, white shirt, Bucs lapel pin and that same red cap.

I still don't know if I think the crab legs photo was excellent trolling or a sign of immaturity. It probably doesn't matter either way.

Take out the paper to show Winston what greets him on his first day as a professional, the ink barely dry on his four-year, $25.3-million rookie contract, which he signed 90 minutes earlier. Open it for him to see. He looks. He’s emotionless.

What’s your reaction, Jameis?

(Winston stands on a table and screams "Fuck her righ----" as Jason Licht immediately tackles Winston and plunges a syringe into his neck)

Winston said: “I had to grow the last couple of years, because of what I’ve done, because of what I have brought on myself. It’s all a part of growing up. I can’t change people’s opinions of me. I just gotta keep getting better every day, as a player and as a man.

“The only thing I can do … It’s not words. It’s actions. It’s by my actions.”

That's a great point by Manzi---I mean Jameis Winston. It's his actions that people will judge him by.

I feel bad for Winston because the sports media just got burnt by Johnny Manziel swearing he was a different person from who he was in college and then he wasn't (I'm not blaming him, he's a person who has to grow up like any early 20-something does), so they are going to be very skeptical of Jameis Winston and his insistence he's totally different now.

Winston knows. It’s a talk-is-cheap time of his life, and he knows he has to stack day after day after day of business-like days together, one after another.

See? Manziel has ruined it for everybody over the next couple of years.

He has to win too.

What? The Buccaneers expect Winston to win them some games? The things you can learn in MMQB...

Two top-10 picks in January turning into the 23rd and 60th picks because of off-field problems. A first-round tackle turning into an undrafted player because of a Louisiana murder.

The NFL everyone!

The draft began with boredom: fairly predictable first round, and only two trades. But we’ve known Winston was going to be the first pick for so long that we forgot what a seminal pick he was, and what a risky pick too, for such a downtrodden franchise that needed him so badly.

Just like last year, when Peter had the Texans picking Blake Bortles #1 overall like everyone knew they would, the top of this draft was pretty boring. 

On Friday, when Winston and his family stepped off a plane from their home in Alabama, the entire Bucs staff was in the lobby to give Winston an ovation. There might be some hate in the community and the wider world, but not here. Not today. Livelihoods are at stake, and the new quarterback can save jobs if he plays like he often did up the road at Florida State.

Yeah, no pressure Jameis. You are not only supposed to learn how to be an NFL quarterback in no time at all but everybody wants you to save their jobs. These people shouldn't be expected to save their own jobs I guess.

“One of the pivotal moments came when Lovie and I went to the Rose Bowl,” says Licht, of the Jan. 1 game that pitted Oregon against FSU, Mariota against Winston, the two best quarterbacks facing off. “We got on the plane here in Tampa and Lovie pulled out his [Microsoft] Surface to watch tape, and I didn’t even want to see what he was looking at. I wanted Lovie to come to his own decision, not influenced in any way by me.”
 
The game: Oregon 59, Florida State 20. A walkoff win by Mariota. Now the two men who share the final say on Bucs’ draft choices and trades were alone, thinking. After the game, in the car back to the hotel, Licht was dying to know. He said to Smith: “All right, Lovie. Who’s your guy?”
 
“Jase, you know who it is,” Smith said.

It's Rex Grossman isn't it?

Licht didn’t know exactly how Smith arrived at this conclusion, but he knew Smith meant Winston.

Meanwhile, Lovie Smith sat there awkwardly because he was clearly referring to the quarterback whose team won by 39 points, but he didn't want to bring this up. After all, he had made a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton. Lovie could handle Jameis being his quarterback.

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but if I'm a Bucs fan it scares me a bit that Licht had it in his mind to pick Winston for over a year now. This is the same guy who thought Josh McCown could be a full-time NFL starter just last year.

So why didn’t the Bucs, who talked to more than 75 people as part of the organization’s investigation into Winston’s character, talk to the woman who accused him of attacking her, Erica Kinsman? Did the Bucs just want the investigation to be finished, and to say what the team wanted it to say?
 
“That’s not the case,” Licht said adamantly. “We are not talking about this now… but we read the depositions. We knew what she was going to say. This was a thorough investigation. We were not going to mistake charisma for character.”

So the Bucs didn't talk to anyone who gave a deposition during that investigation because they knew what these people would say? Or did the Bucs talk to some people who gave a deposition, except the person who was making the accusations during the investigation? I have no dog in this fight, but talking to some who gave a deposition, while also knowing what they would say, then saying "We didn't talk to the alleged victim because we knew what she would say," sounds a bit like reaching a conclusion the team wanted to reach. If the Bucs interviewed another person who had given a deposition then why did they interview this person if they just knew what he/she would say?

Said Licht: “The more I watched of him, the more I thought, what worries you about him, you love. He’s so damn tough. So clutch. When things are going bad, he rises.”

I mean, I could make a joke about bad things and Winston "rising" in those situations, but it would not be appropriate and in poor taste.

There is no question that Licht will be judged by this pick.

BREAKING NEWS: A General Manager will be judged by his draft picks.

But Smith is adamant about one thing.

“I try as a rule to make my own decisions about a person,” he said Saturday, sitting on the edge of the couch in his office. “So we had some incidents in college about Jameis to consider. The crab legs, shooting BB guns, standing in the cafeteria and shouting things out. You know, you do stupid things sometimes when you’re 20, 21 years old. You get off track. You say later, ‘I wish I hadn’t done those things.’ But then there was a serious accusation we had to come to grips with. [The accusation that he sexually assaulted a Florida State student, Kinsman.] That was investigated three times. No charges were filed. I understand something happened. But when do you get to the point where you say, ‘We have to let the courts decide, and we abide by their ruling?’ They did not charge Jameis with anything. And at that point, I am going to make the judgment that I am not going to hold this incident against him.”

Okay...I don't think the point is to hold the incident against Winston. The point is that the Buccaneers need to know if this incident is an example of Winston's behavior towards women, if it was a one-time incident that would never happen again if it ever happened originally or it's just one example of behavior that will cause problems for him as a professional in the NFL. It's not about holding incidents against a player, but judging behavior as representative of behavior you want associated with your franchise now and in the future.

Smith met an uncle of Winston’s who asked him: “You like the NBA?” Smith said he did.

“You remember the Michael Jordan draft?”

Peter doesn't remember this because he doesn't like basketball. Has Peter ever mentioned he doesn't watch much basketball when he's busy making judgments about basketball players/teams?

Smith did. That’s the year, 1984, that Portland took the ill-fated Sam Bowie second overall, and Chicago took Jordan third.

“Don’t pick the wrong guy,” the uncle said.

Don’t pick Marcus Mariota over Winston, he meant.

IS THAT WHAT HE MEANT, PETER?

I do believe that Peter King thinks his readers are absolute morons. He feels the need to explain that "Don't pick the wrong guy," coming from Jameis Winston's uncle means Winston's uncle thinks the Bucs should choose his nephew over Marcus Mariota. Does this need an explanation? Does Peter think his readers are so stupid that they would believe Jameis' uncle is warning the Bucs NOT to choose his nephew? Does Peter think Jameis' uncle thought this would be a good chance to advocate for Dante Fowler Jr. to be the #1 overall pick? Of course Jameis' uncle is referring to drafting Mariota over Winston. Yet, Peter is compelled to explain that's the meaning to his readers of MMQB. Peter thinks his readers are idiots. So haughty of him.

They’d give this test to both Winston (first) and then Mariota (a week later). Winston reported to the facility one day in early March, and offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter and quarterback coach Mike Bajakian taught him what he’d learn on the first day of rookie minicamp. “Day 1 Install,” it was called. Fifteen plays, runs and passes, with a slew of formations, progressions in the quarterback’s read, snap counts, coverages, hot receivers if the defense blitzed, offensive-line protections. Bajakian took 90 minutes to explain the “install,” flying through it on purpose, to throw a lot at Winston to see what he’d remember—more conceptually than in memorization. Then, as part of the information-overload, the coaches took him to lunch in the Bucs cafeteria,

To see if he would stand up on a table and start screaming something obscene? 

introducing him to a slew of people, talking to him about his family, doing whatever to get his mind off the football and on to something else. They wanted to test his recall, and his football acumen.

And if Winston couldn't remember the name of Beverly, a fine lady who was in charge of all desserts at the Buccaneers facility, well then he certainly wasn't worth the #1 overall pick. 

Licht was blown away by Koetter’s impression after that couple of hours with Winston. “I’m going to compare every guy I test like that the rest of my career to Jameis,” Koetter told Licht. 

But there was one other thing that Koetter saw as a danger sign—and the Bucs realize is part of the education of a young quarterback. At Florida State, Winston threw 18 interceptions last season, and had at least seven more dropped or missed. Winston has bravado, which every team wants in its quarterback.

“I’m not afraid of making any throw,” Winston told Koetter that day in March.
“You need to be,” Koetter told Winston.
 
Good advice.

I think it's bad advice. Part of the reason behind Winston's success at Florida State is his confidence that he can make any throw, so why try to take that away from him? Sure, refine it and convince him to not make certain throws in certain situations, but to tell him he needs to be afraid of making any throw? I think that neuters Winston and could eventually erode his confidence by turning him into a quarterback who goes against what has made him successful in college. Teach Winston to recognize coverage and why he shouldn't make a certain throw, don't teach him to be afraid of making that throw though. Let him figure out why he shouldn't make the throw he knows he could make. What do I know though?

You may recall when I wrote about Winston—the Florida State baseball team’s closer last season—at the combine in my Feb. 23 column that I asked him whether he would ever want to play both sports as a professional. “I can’t speak on that,” he said. “It has always been my dream, but I’m just playing football right now.”

Licht and agents Greg Genske and Kenny Felder negotiated the Winston contract so he’d have the business of football out of the way and he could focus solely on football starting with the Bucs’ minicamp starting this Thursday in Tampa. In the contract, a Bucs’ source said, is a clause prohibiting Winston from playing professional baseball during the life of his Tampa Bay deal.

Winston was never really thinking of playing baseball professionally. I like how this statement made to Peter King caused some to wonder about Winston's commitment to football, yet no one seems to have a huge issue with Russell Wilson pretending he may play baseball as a negotiating tool to get a new contract. Wilson has won a Super Bowl, so his commitment to football could never be questioned, even if he spends part of the offseason hanging around the camp of the MLB team that drafted him and constantly is like, "Man, I'd like to play baseball" as an obvious negotiating tactic.

Some inside football here.

I like how Peter has to warn his readers there is some "inside football" coming up. He wants them to have this warning in case they stumbled upon MMQB and thought it was just a collection of short stories about coffee, beer and how women on running trails should really not talk on the phone because they never know who may be following them for a mile. Shows me where the priority is for MMQB these days.

Four really good stories happened between the 53rd pick in the draft, held by Cincinnati as day two of the draft began, and the 61st pick, held by Indianapolis and traded to Tampa Bay when the Colts were on the clock.

Pick 53, Cincinnati: Jake Fisher, tackle, Oregon.

Coach Marvin Lewis loved Fisher. Owner Mike Brown lives by the draft board, and midway through the round, Fisher was the only player left with a first-round Bengal grade. The Bengals turned in the pick. Alexander, working his 22nd draft with the Bengals (the coaches in Cincinnati are more involved than with any other franchise), got the biggest surprise of his personnel evaluation career: He thought one or both of Ogbuehi and Fisher would be gone at pick No. 21, and he got one of them at 21, the other at 53.

As I've said on Twitter of late, teams lie after the draft as well. Either way Marvin Lewis isn't good at player evaluation or he is lying. There was no way that Ogbuehi was going to be gone by #21 due to the injury concerns and I didn't see many mocks that had both Ogbuehi and Fisher gone at that point. I can't imagine what team would pick Ogbuehi in the top 20 picks of the draft given the concern for his knee. I could be wrong, because as we learn later clearly Peter King knows when every player in the draft was due to be drafted.

This could be a redshirt year for Ogbuehi, who won’t be fully healthy until at least November;

Exactly, but Marvin Lewis thinks Ogbuehi would go in the first 20 picks and there is a chance Fisher goes that early too? Once you accept NFL teams lie about shit year-round, it makes what they say much easier to see through.

Pick 55, Baltimore: Maxx Williams, tight end, Minnesota.

But then, maybe 45 minutes before they were scheduled to pick, the Ravens heard reliably (or so they thought) that the Steelers were locked on Williams. Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn’t; you never know in the middle of the draft if you are being played or getting the real scoop. But Baltimore began to call teams ahead of Pittsburgh, picking 56th, to see if they would move. Arizona, at 55, was willing, figuring the guy they wanted here, defensive end Markus Golden of Missouri would likely make it to 58. For the cost of a pick exactly 100 picks later—No. 158 overall—Baltimore leapfrogged Pittsburgh. The Ravens picked Williams.

“So for a fifth-round pick, Ravens stole Maxx Williams from Steelers. Great move,” tweeted Ed Bouchette, long-time and plugged-in Steeler beat man.

It's interesting to me how Peter pays attention to what some NFL beat guys Tweet and ignores others. Ed Bouchette confirms the Steelers may have wanted Williams, so Peter takes this as reality, but later in this MMQB Peter states another prospect was a reach in the 1st round when a Dallas sportscaster stated the Cowboys were going to take this player at #27.

The Steelers got their rookie tight end, Jesse James of Penn State, in the fifth round. It’ll be interesting to see over the next few years how much damage Williams does in this rivalry. The Steelers are the types to look back, but if Williams makes beautiful music with Flacco, he’ll add some spice to a rivalry that doesn’t need it.

Keep creating these storylines and narratives, Peter. We can't let exciting football games between these two teams be the only story. There has to be more.

Pick 60, Dallas: Randy Gregory, defensive end/outside linebacker, Nebraska. My first thought after this pick: Rod Marinelli’s going to have Greg Hardy and Randy Gregory in his defensive team meeting room. Hope he’s ready. The Cowboys honestly considered Gregory in the first round, too, before going for another need guy, cornerback Byron Jones of UConn. When it got close to pick 60, I’m told a serious conversation wasn’t needed; Gregory was such a strong candidate as a player that Dallas was willing to work with him on his marijuana history, and his history of depression and anxiety, according to SI.com’s Don Banks. Other reports say Gregory was either bipolar or had some other personality disorder that made it difficult for him to focus on football, or anything, for long periods. Gregory, without question, was a top-10 value on talent alone. But he tumbled down so many draft boards because of his character flaws.

Yes, in the original draft of this MMQB Peter King referred to a history of depression and anxiety, as well as possibly being bipolar as "character flaws." Of course he did. These are the types of things that Peter writes without thinking. He later apologized on Twitter and all was good. I, of course, made some vague Tweets about a lack of comment from a certain guy who works for "SI" who criticizes other writers and sports talking heads for their comments, as he was suspiciously quiet about this statement. I feel like he gives more leeway to employees of "SI" for statements such as this. He has sort of a "Yeah, he screwed that one up" type of attitude, which is fine, but I get concerned Peter even made the statement in MMQB. Sure, he apologized, but if I Tweet something insensitive on a topic (or do something like this almost every month as it seems of late in regard to Peter King), then what good is an apology if my audience doesn't believe I won't just do it again? That's how I feel about Peter. I feel he is so disconnected from reality in some ways that he needs everyone to say, "Hey buddy, being bi-polar isn't a 'character flaw'" and it shouldn't be that way. Should Peter need someone to correct this statement for him? I wouldn't think so, yet he does. I think that merits some criticism.

Talking football, there have always been rumors that Greg Hardy is a bit bi-polar as well. It's always a rumor and it doesn't mean it's correct. Some guys are just odd. I heard similar stuff about Gregory during the college football season, but in a slightly different version. 

And for the Jones family. On Sunday night, I spoke with Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, who was on the front line of the Gregory decision over the past month:

The MMQB: Did you consider him in the first round? I heard you did.

Jones: I think in this day and time, we want our first-round pick to be clean. That’s how we operated here.

Said with no sense of irony from the team that signed Greg Hardy as a free agent.

The MMQB: Rod Marinelli seems like a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy. Was he on board with Gregory?

Jones: Absolutely. He is my way or the highway. He has said to us before about certain players, ‘I don’t think I can work with this guy.’ But if they love football, and if they fight their ass off in practice and in games, he can work with them. And he wants them.

Translation (and this goes for every NFL team): If they can win us some games and make their position coach look good, then they have a spot on this team. Just as long as they don't get in trouble again, of course. If these players do get in trouble then the team will try to figure out how good they will be without that player and take action or not take action accordingly.

Pick 61, Tampa Bay: Ali Marpet, guard, Hobart. Not a lot of pressure on Tampa Bay GM Jason Licht in this draft. There’s the Jameis Winston pick, and the dangers of that. There’s the disaster of 2014 free agency, which included the pricey acquisition at left tackle, Anthony Collins, failing miserably and getting cut after the season.

Don't forget the rest of the failure from the 2014 free agency period and win the Buccaneers "won" free agency before by signing Carl Nicks and Dashon Goldson. 

At the Senior Bowl, offensive line coach George Warhop told Licht his favorite two players were Smith and Marpet. At the combine, after Marpet ran a guard-best 4.98 40-yard dash, Licht texted one of the Bucs’ owners in the Glazer family—desperate for news on how the quarterbacks looked in Indianapolis—with news on the passers. And he added: “By the way, our favorite player here is Ali Marpet.”

Isn't it weird how most NFL teams get the exact players they loved prior to the draft on draft day? It's odd how nearly every single team was targeting this specific player and then they ended up drafting that player. Yet it happens all the time. A team is targeting a player and then they land that player. Odd, especially given the NFL teams don't continue to lie after the draft. It's all truth-telling from that point on.

On Sept. 13, 2014, Marpet played left tackle and blocked for quarterback Patrick Conlan against Endicott College in Beverly, Mass., with 1,725 watching. On Sept. 13, 2015, if all goes well, Marpet will line up at right guard and block for the first pick in the NFL draft, Jameis Winston, in his NFL debut against the Tennessee Titans, with 65,908 watching. That’s not too big an adjustment, is it?

Well, since Marpet isn't a woman official then I see no reason why this would be a huge adjustment for him. If Marpet were a female official making her introduction to NFL life, then Peter would have serious issues with this type of adjustment. 

Now Peter names his "GM's of the Weekend" or as it is better known, "GM's who seem to have made good moves on paper because that's all Peter really understands or knows at this point." 

Trent Baalke, San Francisco. No one plays the futures trading game better than Baalke. He held the 15th pick of the first round, and the worst-kept secret in football leading up to the draft was that San Francisco was over-the-top smitten with Oregon defensive end Arik Armstead. Here was Armstead, available at 15. But here came San Diego, picking 17th, desperately wanting to get up to pick Melvin Gordon, fearful that Houston, at 16, might. Baalke got San Diego’s fourth-round pick this year and fifth-round pick in 2016, and still got Armstead picking at 17 … at a savings of about $725,000 in first-round-slotting-system contract dollars because Baalke got him two picks later. Baalke also traded a pick 10 slots from the bottom of the draft, number 246 overall, and flipped that to Dallas for a 2016 sixth-rounder. So the Niners enter the offseason with a league-high nine picks in the 2016 draft.

As Peter is prone to do, he thinks a team "wins" the draft by having the most picks in next year's draft and creating more picks in this year's draft. This "futures game" that Baalke is playing worked so well for the 49ers last year, plus he has Jim Tomsula coaching these guys up so what could go wrong?

Next year around draft time, Peter is sure to have a MMQB where he will state that the 49ers "control" the 2016 NFL Draft. What team "won" the draft the year before will then "control" the draft for the next year. That's how it works for Peter.

Mike Maccagnan, New York Jets.

Maccagnan added a speed merchant used to playing big games, Ohio State’s Devin Smith,

Oh, so how will Smith having experience playing in big games help the Jets then?

and an intriguing quarterback prospect, Bryce Petty, with a value pick at 103.

Intriguing meaning, "He's a white, pocket quarterback who some reporters got duped into believing he would be taken earlier so this seems like a steal based on incorrect previous information these reporters had."

Tom Telesco, San Diego. I like Melvin Gordon a lot, and the Denzel Perryman pick gives San Diego three solid inside linebackers; Perryman will be the best of the lot by midseason. But this nod to Telesco is for not trading Philip Rivers. Making that trade because Rivers is 33 and the Chargers aren’t sure if he’ll sign with the franchise long-term would been a dumb, panicked move

Great job in not doing something stupid by trading a franchise quarterback! Also, the Saints didn't trade Drew Brees, so kudos to their front office for not considering a trade since Brees has a huge cap number next year and the team may have to renegotiate or release him. They could have considered a trade, but did not. Great job!

GM I Couldn’t Figure Out

Dave Gettleman, Carolina. None of these things can be judged for at least a couple of years, of course, so Gettleman, who has done a good job being patient in his Carolina rebuild, deserves time to see if he’s right and everyone else is wrong. 

Whatever. I don't care about Peter's opinion of the Panthers' draft. What I do care about is when Peter says things that aren't factually true. While earlier in this MMQB he paid attention to a Tweet from Ed Bouchette, and created a narrative regarding the drafting of Maxx Williams by the Ravens, when the Steelers wanted him as well. It seems Peter ignores other evidence he could find where a statement he might want to believe is true, is actually incorrect.

But with a significant tackle need (Carolina is due to start the shaky Michael Oher on Cam Newton’s blind side, no pun intended), I thought Gettleman over-drafted Shaq Thompson at 25. Thompson certainly would have been there 10 or more picks later.

Thompson "certainly" would have been there. Really? From a Dallas sportscaster...



 Maybe it is just Dallas saying that and the Panthers stumbled into drafting him at the perfect time.



So I don't care what Peter thinks, but evidence points to Thompson not being a reach at #27. Maybe the Panthers are lying and they really care if "experts" think they reached and the Cowboys are covering for them. Or maybe Peter just sort of wrote what he felt he knew but didn't really know.

And picking wide receiver/tight end combo guy Devin Funchess at 41 was a significant reach, according to the chorus of GMs I spoke with over the weekend. “Can be lazy and become disinterested in the game if he goes stretches without being utilized,” Ourlads Guide to the NFL Draft wrote of Funchess.

You mean like Steve Smith would get, which is why the game plan usually ensured he got the ball early in every game? And of course, these GM's all were lying before the draft, but they are back to always telling the truth after the draft is over.

But Gettleman didn’t just reach for Funchess. He traded third- and sixth-round picks to move up to get him. There will be significant pressure on the 14th tackle picked in this draft, fourth-round pick Daryl Williams, to produce at tackle for Carolina. 

He's not even penciled in as the starter right now. The guy who started the last part of the season and two playoff games is penciled in as the starter. So.............not as much pressure as Peter King wants there to be.

None of these players may be any good and this could be an "F" draft. I don't care, but at least try and base these opinions on fact if you are going to try and pass them off as fact.

Picks I Liked

40. Tennessee: Dorial Green-Beckham, wide receiver, Missouri/Oklahoma. No idea if he’ll boom or bust. But the 40th pick is a good place for a player with Randy Moss raw talent and a risk-reward pockmarked past.

Peter needed to get a quick interview in with Stephen Jones to find out what motivated the Cowboys to draft a guy with "character flaws" at #60, but the guy who pushed a girl down some stairs at #40, well that seems about the right time to take a kid with that kind of talent. Peter likes it.

Idiot Mock Drafter of the Year

Me. When will I learn? I got worse as the month went on. In my mock draft from last Tuesday, I had four direct hits: Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Trae Waynes, Arik Armstead. In my mock draft April 1, I had six direct hits: Winston, Mariota, Waynes, Dante Fowler, DeVante Parker, Kevin Johnson. I mean, who gets worse with four more weeks to research?

Someone who takes the time to speak with NFL GM's and scouts about their feelings regarding which teams will pick which players at certain spots. Someone who then relies on these same anonymous scouts and GM's to honestly evaluate players after the draft is over and yet now feels like he has gotten to the bottom of the truth.

“It doesn’t bother me. It happens all the time. That’s what makes sports great. You have nothing to talk about on sports radio, it’s ‘Hey, let’s talk trades,’ and everybody comes up with a trade. It’s great. I think it’s fun. But if the guy getting talked about in the trade gets a little nervous, my point is, I’ve got to tell him just not to listen to that stuff. I mean, everybody can trade. Trade me. I don’t care.”

—Philadelphia coach Chip Kelly, on the spate of trade rumors around his team, as reports swirled that he desperately wanted to trade up to acquire Marcus Mariota with the first or second pick of the draft.

The wisdom of Chip Kelly. What wisdom it is.

Factoids of the Week That May Interest Only Me

Todd Gurley was the top-rated player on the St. Louis draft board.

It doesn't surprise me the future Los Angeles Rams had Gurley as the top-rated player on their board. He's a stud running back, even if he is coming off a major injury. Plus, Jeff Fisher knows you build a team from the running back position up while ignoring the quarterback position until he has to upgrade at that position.

The Atlanta Falcons in April arranged for a former star linebacker, Jessie Tuggle, to announce the team’s fifth-round pick, live from the new College Football Hall of Fame in Atlanta. All teams did their day-three picks remotely, to boost interest locally somewhere in the home market, and most got at least one former star to announce one or more of them.

Tuggle was handed the card to make the announcement and looked down at it.


Grady Jarrett, defensive tackle, Clemson.

Tuggle’s son.

This is an interesting story, but it's exactly that, a story. This isn't a "factoid" by any stretch of the imagination. I just am saying this probably doesn't fit under the "Factoids of the Week that May Only Interest Me" section of MMQB. It's a story, not a fact.

Marcus Mariota does not have accounts on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Then that must mean he is going to be successful in the NFL because he's too focused on succeeding to have time for social media. It could also mean he doesn't want anyone seeing the things that he does during his life, whether good or bad, but that's probably just the jaded away of looking at it.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Notes of the Week

 1. The more big events in my life in Chicago, the better. Love that city. Love walking everywhere. Love the crowds on Michigan Avenue. 

It's a great place to walk behind people for a mile or so while they are talking on the phone or just trying to go about living their lives. 

My Chicago hotel Wednesday and Thursday nights, before traveling to Tampa on Friday, was 1.6 miles from the draft site on Michigan Avenue. I walked it three times in the two days I was in town and wouldn’t have minded walking it six times.

Peter even followed this one lady down an alley. He had been trailing behind her for a few blocks while she was on her phone and then she quickly turned down an alley (she must have been in a hurry!) and ran off. It's weird to Peter how the women in Chicago would take off running after he trailed behind them for a while. It must be a new exercise program.

Then Peter has a Tweet about Floyd Mayweather's team pulling the credential of Rachel Nichols and Michelle Beadle. I didn't feel like embedding it, but if Mayweather pulling a credential from journalists would surprise you then it shouldn't.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think it was cool to see Nate Boyer, the 34-year-old Army Special Forces veteran of three tours in the Middle East, get signed as an undrafted free-agent long-snapper by the Seahawks on Saturday. That shouldn’t be confused with “has a great job at winning the long-snapping job with the Seahawks” because of the clear advantage that incumbent Clint Gresham has to win the job. Not only did Gresham just sign a three-year, $2.7-million deal with Seattle, with a $300,000 signing bonus, but he has some physical advantages. He’s six years younger, and 6-3 and 240. Boyer is 5-11 and 220.

Nate Boyer didn't have a bad snap in three years at Texas. Yet, he went undrafted and finally got on with a team as an undrafted free agent. Was Boyer undrafted because he's old and was in the military? Obviously it couldn't have had anything to do with his skill set. Why did he go undrafted just because he's older and served his country?

(Seeing if anyone gets this non-hilarious parody of last year's post-draft rage)

3. I think there haven’t been many stories like the La’el Collins story since I’ve covered the NFL, and we need to let the legal system take its course. But if I were him, and if I were exonerated by police in the case, I would go play football somewhere this year.

Since apparently I was a homer a little while back while discussing the Panthers draft, let me be a homer for another minute. Robert Klemko responded back to me on Twitter (he's another writer who looks for his name on Twitter, even when it's not tagged) at my criticism that he had the Panthers taking Dorial Beckham-Green at #25. Yeah, it wasn't ever happening. Never. Not happening.

After paying $13.1 million to a guy who sat out the rest of the 2014 season due to legal troubles, the team was going to draft a guy who pushed a girl down stairs? No fucking way. Klemko defended the mock draft choice (found here) by telling me Dave Gettleman (the Panthers GM) was with the Giants when Plaxico got in legal trouble and then the team drafted Hakeem Nicks. He then called Nicks "no angel" at UNC. Interesting, except Nicks did nothing at UNC that could qualify for "no angel" status. He never got in trouble with the law, at least that I could find. Nicks was part of an academic fraud investigation, but that was AFTER he was drafted and had played for the Giants. But sure, whatever way Klemko wants to defend his picks, even he has to play slightly loose with facts. This response bothered me for some reason. He seems to have made up Nicks being "no angel" at UNC, unless there is something else I don't know about or couldn't find he was referring to.

8. I think the NFL allowing the Patriots’ deflated football saga—the Ted Wells investigative team began its work 101 days ago—to stretch past the draft makes this absurdity possible: If New England is punished, say by the loss of a draft choice, something that happened in the 2014 season will be punished in the 2016 season. That’s just wrong. Roger Goodell cannot simply say to Ted Wells or to any investigator: “Get back to me when you get back to me.” He has to either put a time limit on the investigation, or at the bare minimum, say, “You’ve got to have this done some time before the draft, so if there are sanctions to be assessed, we can assess them at the right time, not a year and a half later.”

Look Peter, Roger Goodell is not in charge of a timeline for any type of NFL investigation. Sure, maybe Wells is collecting billing hours while sipping cocktails, but he's doing that without Roger Goodell's knowledge. Sometimes an investigation into whether a bunch of footballs were deflated, and if true, when they were deflated takes over 100 days. Roger Goodell expects the NFL's players to do exactly as he wants them to do, but his hands are tied when it comes to making Ted Wells wrap up an investigation the NFL is paying him to provide conclusions on.

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

a. So Alex Rodriguez tied for number four on the all-time home run list. So? Let me know when he’s going for number one, and then I’ll pay attention. I mean, in what other walk of life does time stop when you become the fourth-best at something, particularly with Rodiguez’s asterisks?

Way to try and pass it off as not a big deal, Peter. Yeah, who really cares about the 4th leading home run hitter in MLB history. Who is Willie Mays anyway? It's no big deal. Nice way to pretend your apathy doesn't revolve entirely around A-Rod's repeated PED use.

b. Kevin Harlan in last two minutes of Clippers-Spurs: “I DO NOT WANT THIS SERIES TO END!”

c. Me either, 

But Peter, you are talking about the NBA. ARE YOU A FAN OF THE NBA? YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR POSITION ON THIS CLEAR IN THE PAST!

and I’m not even a basketball fan.

Oh, that's better. No mention of the NBA, and the mentions happen every week now, are complete without a caveat on how much Peter hates the NBA.

d. B.B. King is in hospice care. Comfort to him. Our culture has been so enriched because of him.

I'm betting the only B.B. King song that Peter knows is "When Love Comes to Town," and he only knows this song because King did the song with U2.

i. Always good to steal a game at Wrigley, as I did Wednesday night. Thanks to my SI Chicago ad sales team for a fun evening, even in the 46-degree chill. Gerrit Cole’s something to see. And it was cool to see Andrew McCutchen’s 1,000th career hit, a screaming triple to the center field warning track.

The ball was probably screaming because Peter had been following behind it for a mile, eavesdropping on the conversations it was having.

The Adieu Haiku

Marpet, guard. Hobart.
In the second round. Hobart.
You kidding? Hobart


Congrats, Peter! In a 11 word haiku, you manged to use the same word three times. This is now the most useless "Adieu Haiku" in MMQB history. I would say it's the fourth-worst "Adieu Haiku" but apparently no one cares about the fourth-best or worst at anything.  

Monday, February 2, 2015

0 comments Steve Dilbeck Is Still Not Pleased With the Dodgers Offseason

Steve Dilbeck has a had a rough time of it this offseason. It's supposed to be the offseason where he can relax a little bit, but the Dodgers went and hired a nerd to be the team's GM, which means Steve Dilbeck has to put effort into undermining and disagreeing with every move Andrew Friedman makes. And just to spite Steve, the Dodgers are making all sorts of roster moves. They gave away an outfielder with arthritic hips to the Padres, the same guy who became Steve's favorite player immediately after he was traded by the Head Nerd in Charge of the Dodgers. Sure, Dilbeck didn't originally like Matt Kemp, but that changed once he got a chance to criticize Andrew Friedman found out that Kemp wouldn't say he hated Steve. That made all the difference. Anyway, Steve is upset because he hates everything the Dodgers do and continues to be on the warpath to criticize any move Andrew Friedman makes, even when he has to speak nonsense about how teams should sign free agents based on past production, not future production.

But first, Steve wants to know when the Dodgers will start mortgaging their future and trading their top prospects. Of course if Friedman did trade the Dodgers' top prospects then Steve would have an issue with this as well. There is one end goal. Take down the Geek Squad.

Anyway, if he's viewed as some really, really bright prospect you should hang onto him. If his name is Corey Seager, Joc Pederson or Julio Urias.

They are viewed as talented players who will work for a cheaper wage than veteran baseball players. So yes, it makes sense to hang on to them if these prospects appear to have a bright future. And just to be clear, all three of these guys are really good prospects.

Pederson hit .303/.435/.582 last year at AAA with 33 home runs. He's 22 years old.

Seager hit .349/.402/.602 last year between A+ and AA with 20 home runs. He's 20 years old.

Urias pitched 87.2 innings at A+ with a record of 2-2 and an ERA of 2.36, 109 strikeouts, 37 walks and a 1.106 WHIP. He's all of 17 years old.

There are no guarantees, but these three guys are young and have produced at the minor league level. Trading them is a good idea if the Dodgers could get something great in return, but otherwise they are a future source of cheap labor for the Dodgers.

Apparently it bothers CEO Stan Kasten that in the nearly three years his group has owned the Dodgers, not one player or pitcher drafted by the team has graduated from the minors to an everyday job with the major league club.

This should absolutely bother him. A minor league pipeline to the majors is crucial for any team that is serious about winning the World Series. When injuries/ineffectiveness occur, the best and cheapest way to replace players on the major league roster is to have a healthy minor league system. So Stan Kasten should be deeply concerned the Dodgers pipeline in the minors is not strong and this could be part of the reason he hired Andrew Friedman.

I don’t know, the last two years they won their division. Seems a lot more important in the long run.

I try not to be mean, but Steve Dilbeck is an idiot. If Steve Dilbeck isn't an idiot then he is pretending to be an idiot. No sportswriter could cover baseball for any length of time and genuinely think winning the division is more important in the long run than developing a healthy pipeline of minor league players that can contribute to the major league team. The "winning the division" thing can stop once the team has to focus on the free agent market and trades to cover gaps on the major league roster. This requires a very basic understanding of baseball and how free agency works. The Dodgers can't survive and thrive just on the trade and free agent market.

Certainly a team is better off with a reasonable pipeline of young talent coming up, but it is also fine to trade that potential talent for immediate help.

True, but what happens when the Dodgers need immediate help next year after Juan Uribe's contract is up? What happens when Zack Greinke opts-out? What happens when Carl Crawford and Andre Ethier get injured? All of a sudden, not having Joc Pederson or Corey Seager waiting to make a difference for the big league squad becomes a bigger problem than it is in January when everyone on the Dodgers team is expected to be healthy and play to their full potential.

Which brings us to Urias. He’s the 18-year-old Mexican left-hander the Dodgers think is a future ace.

Only this Dodgers team, now with improved defense and a solid lineup, is still in need of one more starting pitcher. There have been talks with the Phillies about ace Cole Hamels, but most assume it won’t happen because Philadelphia would naturally want one of the Dodgers’ three top prospects as part of any package in return.

I see the way Steve Dilbeck is going to criticize Andrew Friedman throughout his tenure with the Dodgers. He'll complain that Friedman is not "winning now" with a team built to "win now," all while ignoring (or in the case of McCarthy, not approving of the signing) Friedman trading for Rollins and Kendrick and signing Brandon McCarthy, which are all attempts to win now.

What if the Dodgers had decided to trade Clayton Kershaw when he was in the minors in an attempt to win now? It's not that the Dodgers don't want to win now, but having a pitcher in the minors who can contribute to the big league squad in two or so years while not demanding a huge contract means the Dodgers can spend money to cover deficiencies at other spots on the roster.

So do you hang on to a potential ace at the cost of acquiring a known entity? Hamels will turn 31 this month and has four additional years on his current contract at $90 million. That’s a reasonable deal considering the $155-million, six-year deal Jon Lester just signed with the Cubs.

Okay, sure. Or the Dodgers could keep a guy 14 years younger than Hamels and ensure they are building for the future while also trying to win now. I mean really, if Steve Dilbeck doesn't see why the Dodgers wouldn't trade Urias for Cole Hamels then I can't help him. Regardless of the uncertainty of prospects, there is uncertainty with Cole Hamels too. He's on the wrong side of 30 now and trading the best pitching prospect the Dodgers have would also involve paying Hamels $90 million, which could then in turn affect how much they have to offer Greinke once he opts-out of his contract.

Or the four-year, $48-million contract the Dodgers just gave Brandon McCarthy, who when last seen by the Dodgers -- back in April, when he was withe Diamondbacks -- was being pounded for six runs and 10 hits in seven innings.

Except the Dodgers didn't have to give up any prospects to sign McCarthy, which is a point that Dilbeck obviously isn't willing to mention when trying to make this comparison. The Dodgers just spent money signing McCarthy, in a move to win now, but didn't give up a prospect to get McCarthy. So it's not the same as signing Hamels, because the Dodgers don't lose Urias in signing McCarthy.

The Phillies reportedly would prefer a position player, so maybe the deal can’t happen. Plus Hamels is left-handed, and the Dodgers already have two lefties in the rotation, Clayton Kershaw and Hyun-Jin Ryu, so maybe they’re better off trying to sign either Max Scherzer or James Shields, both right-handers. Both, of course, turned down qualifying offers, so signing either would cost the Dodgers a precious first-round pick.

James Shields is also going to want more money than he is probably going to end up being worth and Max Scherzer is represented by Scott Boras, so you know that his price will be higher than 85-90% of MLB teams would be willing to pay. It's not just about the first round pick and Dilbeck is getting off his "Why not trade the prospects?" topic of discussion which he has used to hide his real agenda and topic of discussion, which is "Andrew Friedman isn't spending enough money to win now, because everyone knows the more money you spend on players in free agency, the more World Series you will win."

Let’s just hope the Dodgers haven’t gone overboard and are suddenly so wedded to creating their own possible stars that they pass up on adding a known one now.

Yes, let's hope that the Dodgers aren't committed to putting together a Top 10 minor league system, because that would be awful. Let's hope the Dodgers aren't going overboard by creating a minor league system that will be the lifeblood of the franchise and keeps the team competitive over a decade-long span of time.

Now Dilbeck again bemoans that the Dodgers aren't signing any big name free agents. At least he doesn't deviate from his agenda.

Cole Hamels, it would have been sweet. Max Scherzer, rejoice in those coming riches. James Shields, guess we never really thought it was going to happen.

The Dodgers are meant for the cellar of the NL West now. Fortunately they have a stud pitcher coming up in the minors who could be here in a couple of years...

The superstar pitcher who was going to be added to give the Dodgers that fantastic rotation? Guess you can forget about it. Such a nice little dream. And a seemingly reasonable one, given the Dodgers’ vast riches.

Only apparently there will be no superstar-level pitcher coming to the Dodgers this off-season. No new superstar coming anywhere on the team.

I guess the Dodgers will have to stick with the two superstar pitchers they already have. What a bummer.

Stan Conte alert: That should finish the Dodgers rotation, complete with duct tape, bailing wire and crossed fingers. 

Which, by the way, is how the rest of the MLB teams put their rotation together too. It's not like there are teams with guaranteed starters who will perform above league average from the 1st to the 5th starter.

That makes your expected 2015 rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Zach Greinke, Hyun-Jin Ryu, McCarthy and Anderson.

Worst rotation ever? Most likely.

Now if you go way out there on a limb and assume good health, that’s a really good rotation. Not as good as if Hamels or Scherzer had dropped in, but really good.

Which, by the way again, even with Hamels and Scherzer in the rotation then it would be a really good rotation and good health would still have to be assumed.

McCarthy has been on the disabled list seven times in his nine-year career with shoulder problems. Until last season, he had never thrown 200 innings.

Anderson has been on the DL seven times and he’s 26. Last season he threw only 43 1/3 innings for the Rockies, sidelined by surgeries for a fractured index finger and then a bulging disk in his back.

Guess what? This is where having a great minor league system, the same minor league system that Dilbeck wanted to tear apart to find a superstar player, comes in handy for the Dodgers. See how it works? A healthy minor league system can create more options for a rotation complete with bailing wire and crossed fingers in case the wire breaks and the crossed fingers don't work.

So if you found yourself wistful that this new Dodgers management team would come in and make at least one big splash by adding an elite player, sorry. The lineup is set, the rotation is set and probably so is the bullpen.

If you found yourself wistful that the new Dodgers management would not trade away prospects and instead choose to build the team from within while remaining competitive now, then you are probably pretty happy.

Their only big move has been to trade Matt Kemp for a part-time catcher and a pair of pitching prospects, one of whom is to be flipped for a year of shortstop Jimmy Rollins.

A Matt Kemp with arthritic hips.

But without a big-time addition. No sexy newcomer. Nothing to grab a headline and excite the masses.

I forgot how many sexy newcomers and headlines that excited the masses the Royals and Giants had last offseason that enabled them to win the World Series. Obviously I'm just forgetting that sexy newcomers and headlines immediately lead to World Series titles.

They can get by with this for now.

Muddle through, you mean? It's hard to get excited when the Dodgers just have the best pitcher in baseball and Zack Greinke headlining the rotation, but I'm sure everyone will find a way to get excited anyway.

They still might not be done.

Which isn't at all what Dilbeck said previously in this column. To recall:

The superstar pitcher who was going to be added to give the Dodgers that fantastic rotation? Guess you can forget about it.

Only apparently there will be no superstar-level pitcher coming to the Dodgers this off-season.

Stan Conte alert: That should finish the Dodgers rotation, 

The lineup is set, the rotation is set and probably so is the bullpen.

The lineup will be very good, the rotation potentially superb, the defense much improved. But without a big-time addition. 

But hey, now Dilbeck says the Dodgers may not be done. He said five separate times the Dodgers were done, but now decides he may be wrong. Well, not wrong. Only the Geek Squad is wrong. Steve is just playing both sides so as not to take any chances. He wants to be negative about Friedman's current moves because of his dislike for Friedman, while also keeping the door open to Friedman making another move so as not to look incorrect or too quick to judge.

That rotation is pretty fragile – Kershaw, Greinke and Ryu were all sidelined by injury last season – so some kind of swing man may yet be coming. Certainly, there’s no way he’s going to count on this starting five being healthy all season.

The rotation is set!...except it's not. Dilbeck will judge Friedman based on the rotation being set, mostly because that makes it easier to judge him negatively.

But it doesn’t appear it will be a Scherzer. Not someone to get the heart racing.

A heart racing doesn't lead to World Series titles. It's important to know this.

I know, you just sort of sigh. Apparently dreams of spending big were left to a time past.

(Sigh) Big spending worked so well last year in helping the Dodgers win a playoff series.

Dilbeck now wonders if Brandon McCarthy is just another Jason Schmidt and makes an incredibly stupid comment about free agency and why teams spend on free agents.

And so now it’s time to ask: Is Brandon McCarthy really worth $48 million for four years?

Eh, maybe not. Maybe. Who really knows? Ask again in four years. He's a starting pitcher in a league where starting pitchers are at a premium.

McCarthy is a nice enough pitcher. Certainly a solid No. 5. Still with some upside. But a $48-million pitcher at four years for a guy with chronic shoulder problems?

Welcome to the MLB market for pitchers. Besides, Dilbeck wants the Dodgers to spend money so as not to act like a small market team and that's what they are doing. 

If you examine the traditional baseball statistics on McCarthy, this deal makes about as much sense and Vin Scully signing with the Padres.

(The sound of crickets chirping)

At no point in the 31-year-old’s career has he posted particularly impressive numbers.

Other than in 2011 and 2012 or with the Yankees in 2014. Those two and a half years he had an ERA below 3.40 and very impressive xFIP. Starting pitchers have gotten more money than $48 million in free agency based on two and a half good years of pitching.

He’s struck out 6.3 batters per nine innings, with a nice 1.29 WHIP. And since he’s battled those lingering shoulder problems --- he’s been on the disabled list seven times with a sore shoulder --- only twice in his career has he pitched more than 135 innings.

Now McCarthy's injuries are the reason why he may not end up being worth $48 million over four years. Though again, I have to add that if the Dodgers had a better farm system then they wouldn't have to spend $48 million on the free agent market and could rely on starting pitcher within their system to be the 5th starter. One more reason why Dilbeck's first column I covered here is so out of touch with reality. A healthy farm system means the Dodgers could allocate $48 million at another spot on the roster. No reason to be wedded to stars in the minor league system though, right?

Dodgers General Manager Farhan Zaidi and McCarthy argue a new conditioning program made him stronger, elevating his velocity a couple mph to 93 and enabling him to finally last the duration of a full season. Plus, it’s not like Chase Field is a pitcher’s ballpark.

Clearly the Dodgers believe the way he pitched in New York is further indication his past health issues are behind him.

He's getting older, the injuries may not be behind him. By the way, the great and wonderful Max Scherzer has only pitched 200 innings in his career twice.

“We feel really good about him turning the corner last year and think he has the ability to carry that kind of work load into the future,” Zaidi said.

Can you speak a different language please, because Steve Dilbeck doesn't speak nerd. (Dilbeck high-fives his friends who are all wearing letterman jackets)

At one of the bastions of sabermetrics --- FanGraphs --- the argument was made by Jeff Sullivan that time could prove the Dodgers actually have a bargain in McCarthy because his xFIP is so awesome. Surely you’re familiar with xFIP.

Yes.

No? 

Yes.

I absolutely promise you the Geek Squad is.

High-five your friends in the letterman jackets again, Steve.

Oh, and guess what? Dilbeck understands xFIP too. That doesn't make him a member of the Geek Squad though, he just wants to know his enemy.

No doubt I will mangle explaining it, but it’s a stat that measures walks, hit batters, strikeouts and home runs (that should have been allowed based on fly balls). And in xFIP, McCarthy totally rocks.

“If you believe in Brandon McCarthy’s xFIP and shoulder strength, the Dodgers just inked a pretty good bargain,” wrote Sullivan. “If you figure he’s likely to return to the DL a handful of times for the old problem he had, he can still be more than worth the money in the innings he manages to throw.”

Starting pitching is expensive, and repeat after me, those teams who don't have a farm system where they can call up a prospect who can fill the role of a 5th starter often have to take a chance on a guy like Brett Anderson or sign a free agent pitcher like Brandon McCarthy. One more very good reason the Dodgers may not want to trade Urias or other minor league starting pitchers who they believe have potential to be part of the rotation in order to acquire a superstar starting pitcher.

So a pitcher who throws extremely well for 20-25 starts is worth more than a mediocre pitcher who starts 30-35 times. Which makes perfect sense.

Not all the time, but whatever. It depends on who is making those 10 starts in place of the pitcher who throws extremely well for 20-25 starts.

Only McCarthy has not been an exceptional pitcher.

Ready for this statement about free agency? Here it comes.

They’re paying less for what he’s done that what they hope he can do. Which makes no sense.

So free agency is NOT about paying for what a pitcher can do? It's about paying for what a pitcher has done? That's the point of free agency to Steve Dilbeck. This explains a hell of a lot. Steve seems to believe a pitcher should be paid in free agency based on what he has done, as sort of a reward by a team who didn't benefit from that free agent's performance but wanted to tell him he did a great job in the past, instead of paying him based on what that pitcher will do in the future. If anyone is looking to unlock the secret on how to overpay for free agents who never live up to their contract, then look no further than this sentence written by Dilbeck. Paying a free agent for what's he done, instead of what he will do in the future is a great way to sign players who aren't worth the money they are being paid in free agency.

And he got four years and $48 million.

And it makes absolute sense for McCarthy to be paid based on what he will do instead of what he has done in the past. It's ridiculous to do free agency any other way.

I'm amazed that Dilbeck thinks the Dodgers should pay for what McCarthy has done in the past and not what he will do in the future.

“Just because of his intelligence and attention to detail and game planning, plus his command,” Zaidi said. “There was not a pitcher during my time there who was better able to execute a game plan than Brandon.”

Now he has to execute it effectively for four years. Has to stay healthy for four years. These are good odds?

Like Dilbeck said, even great pitchers like Greinke and Kershaw were injured this year. So McCarthy may not be healthy all four years, but if he keeps up how he pitched for the Yankees then he will be worth $12 million per year. Plus, this is why having a good farm system is important. If McCarthy does get injured there is another decent pitcher who can take his place for a few starts.

Former Dodgers GM Ned Colletti once signed a sore shouldered pitcher to three years (corrected) and $47 million. Jason Schmidt made 10 starts in two seasons and called it a career.

I don't believe it. From everything I have read, Ned Colletti had never made a mistake as the GM of the Dodgers. This is obviously a lie that Dilbeck is telling.

At least Schmidt had been a three-time All-Star and Cy Young runner-up. There was evidence of greatness. He’d thrown over 135 innings nine different times and 200 innings five times.

Fortunately, the purpose of free agency isn't to pay a pitcher based on his past results, but to pay him based on anticipated future results.

Not so with McCarthy. Their greatest similarity is a risky contract.

(Steve Dilbeck) "Why won't the Dodgers spend some money to shore up their rotation and other needy spots on the roster?"

(Steve Dilbeck) "I can't believe the Dodgers spent money on a pitcher like Brandon McCarthy to shore up their rotation. It's a risky contract for sure. The Dodgers would have been better off spending more money on another pitcher to shore up their rotation, and be sure to trade a few prospects to acquire that pitcher. Then give that pitcher a new contract extension based on how well he pitched in the past for a team that wasn't the Dodgers. That's a whole lot less risky."

Anything to criticize Andrew Friedman I guess.

Monday, November 3, 2014

3 comments Important Update: Baseball is Still Dying

No worries everyone, baseball is still dying. When the World Series was taking place, it felt like every news outlet had to prepare their readers for the imminent death of baseball with stories about how the sport is just totally dying. It's circling the drain and circling the drain hard. The "New York Times" (Slogan: "All the news that's fit to print"...so there's that sense of irony in discussing baseball dying while the "Times" stares dead in the face of a changing media world) takes it's turn pointing out just how dead the sport of baseball is becoming. These articles about how baseball is dying are becoming a cliche in of themselves. Baseball is a regional sport. It's why local television deals are still lucrative, but the World Series has declining ratings. In fact, as I have pointed out many, many times, nearly every top-rated show has declining ratings from 20-30 years ago. It's due to the amount of channels available. I have so many channels I don't even really know how many I have and I don't really have any special premium channels. But it's easier to get pageviews with the lazy "Baseball is dying" article than it is to write a nuanced article about why baseball isn't dying, but is declining in terms of viewer interest due to other factors. Yet in the end, baseball as a sport is still healthy.

It may be America’s national pastime, but it has never felt less national.

BOOM! Guns blazing, coming out hot. This article comes from the "New York Times," but this story has never felt more old.

On Tuesday night, the first game of the 2014 World Series drew just 12.2 million viewers to Fox, making it the lowest-rated Game 1 on record. Game 2 on Wednesday night fared somewhat better, with 12.9 million people tuning in. 

It seems to me that would have put the first game as one of the highest rated primetime shows of that week. In fact, the increase from Game 1 to Game 2 is the highest improvement from Game 1 to Game 2 in 8 years. But hey, let's not include relevant information that could show the point attempting to be proven as incorrect. Leave out relevant information in order to keep the narrative going.

For most of the last century, the start of baseball’s World Series — with its red, white and blue bunting and occasional ceremonial first pitch from the president — was always a major event. The opening game of the Fall Classic has provided some of the country’s most enduring sports memories, including Willie Mays’s over-the-shoulder basket catch (1954), Sandy Koufax’s 15-strikeout performance (1963) and Kirk Gibson’s walk-off home run (1988). 

For most of the last century, there were only a limited amount of channels on television that viewers could watch. So viewers watched the World Series because of limited options. Now the World Series is going up against shows like "The Walking Dead" and premium network shows like "Boardwalk Empire" and "Homeland." Not that those shows draw massive ratings (okay, "The Walking Dead" does), but it draws viewers away from the game.

But of course, some honesty about WHY the World Series isn't a major event anymore wouldn't be fun to read. With more competition for viewers' eyes, ratings for every top-rated show have decreased. Sales of Budweiser and other "name" beers have declined because there are more options out there for beer drinkers. Ratings for radio stations have declined because of Sirius satellite radio and this example can be used for many industries where there was once limited options and this is no longer true.

But this week, more people watched “NCIS: New Orleans” and “The Big Bang Theory,” and — for that matter — “The Walking Dead,” the cable show about zombies.

I'm not sure what "The Walking Dead" being a cable show about zombies has to do with anything. Welcome to 2014. Cable television shows get great ratings. Catch up or you will fall behind.

The audience for “Sunday Night Football,” a regular season game between the San Francisco 49ers and the Denver Broncos, was almost twice that of Games 1 or 2. Even last Saturday night’s college football matchup — Florida State University versus Notre Dame — drew more viewers than either World Series game. 

Football is more popular than baseball. There is no denying this. The college football matchup was between the #2 and #5 teams in the country where both teams have historically well-represented fan bases throughout the country. Popular college football teams ranked high in the college football rankings competing against each other drew high ratings. This shouldn't be a shock.

Perhaps the most compelling statement about baseball’s relative standing among American sports fans is this:

I warn you, this isn't a compelling statement about baseball's relative standing among American sports fans. This is a statement using an outlier sporting event that happens every four years compared to two games in a yearly World Series.

Last summer’s World Cup match between the United States and Portugal drew 25 million viewers, roughly double that of the World Series opener. 

Deep sigh.

This is a World Cup match against Portugal, who has Ronaldo on their team. Ronaldo is a very, very popular soccer player and this was an important match for the United States against a very talented Portugal team. Most soccer fans from the United States were going to watch this game, while MLB has a more bisected fan base where fans of baseball wouldn't necessarily watch two teams they may not like play in the World Series. The World Cup is a national event, while the World Series is not. Not only that, but World Cup soccer matches like this only happen once every four years, so it should not come as a shock that the ratings for this soccer match were very high. It's really not a very good comparison to compare the ratings for an important World Cup match with the ratings for two World Series games. They are totally different types of sporting events and the infrequency of the World Cup (along with the hype of facing Ronaldo and Portugal) helped the United States and Portugal ratings come in at 25 million viewers.

The low ratings highlight a number of trends in the sports and media industries. Above all, perhaps, is the rise of the N.F.L. in the era of 24-hour sports television, and the growing popularity of football fantasy leagues and video games. On a more basic level, potential World Series viewers simply have more options than ever before, both in their ever-expanding cable packages and via online streaming services like Netflix.

Yep, that's the reason. I wish we could all move on now, but that's not possible. The writers still have to keep pounding in the same points rather than acknowledge trends in sports and media industries show there are more options available to television watchers. I'm not sure what fantasy football or video games have to do with baseball ratings, but I'm also not so smart that I am able to write for the "New York Times."

Unlike the N.F.L. and the N.B.A., it derives a vast majority of its revenues not from nationally televised games, but rather from those shown on regional sports networks such as the YES Network in New York and Boston-based NESN.

Yet again, this is another reason that the World Series games don't draw epic ratings. They still draw very good ratings compared to other television shows on during the week, but the ratings aren't what they used to be, and this is why. There's no need to keep beating this dead horse and pointing out that World Series ratings are down. There is a perfectly reasonable explanation behind it.

The modest viewership thus far is partly a function of the matchup: the San Francisco Giants versus the Kansas City Royals. The Royals have one of the smallest TV markets in all of Major League Baseball.

I'll remember this the next time people start bitching that the Yankees or Red Sox are in the World Series again. It seems that people don't want to watch teams like the Yankees in the World Series, but they complain when there isn't an exciting matchup in the World Series. Yankees v. Dodgers has more appeal to the casual fan.

But in 1985, the last time the Royals played for the championship — and won — the games averaged 34.5 million viewers. (That team had George Brett at third base; this one has Mike Moustakas.) World Series ratings have been in a more or less steady decline since then. The last nine years have produced the eight least watched World Series.

Writers like this that continuously point out how World Series ratings are declining even after they have pointed out two good reasons this is true irritate me. The question has been answered and any re-phrasing of "Here's how bad the ratings are" is simply re-stating the question that has been posed and answered.

In some ways, baseball has never been stronger.

And yet, two or three times per week there are "Baseball is dying because of ratings...derp" articles written. It's almost like it's more fun to write these articles than it is to simply focus on another topic due to the fact the decline in baseball ratings does make sense when all factors are taken into account.

The game has been free of labor strife for almost 20 years. Teams across the country are playing in new, taxpayer-subsidized stadiums. Attendance is robust, helped by the recent addition of two new wild-card teams to the postseason, which has kept more teams alive deeper into the fall.

This was none of Bud Selig's doing. No really, David Stern was professional sports' best commissioner for taking ready-made marketable superstars and managing to show declining ratings for the NBA Finals. Isn't it funny how it doesn't work that way? We get many, many "Baseball is dying" articles, but the ratings for the NBA Finals aren't quite what they used to be either. Of course the ratings for the NBA Finals were never what the ratings for the World Series were, so it's been a greater fall in ratings for the World Series.

A number of franchises have also recently secured lucrative, multiyear deals to have their games carried on local cable networks. The Dodgers, for instance, signed a deal with Time Warner Cable worth up to $8 billion over 25 years. In addition, franchises also share the pooled revenues from nationally televised games. Over the last 20 years, baseball’s annual revenues have grown to about $8 billion from under $2 billion.

Shhhh......this isn't about revenues. It's about ratings. Stick to the reasons baseball is dying. Who cares about revenues? Ratings are what determines if a sport is dying, not whether that sport is making enough money to stay afloat.

Both Fox and M.L.B. emphasized that the audience totals now should include viewers watching in Spanish on the Fox Deportes cable channel. That would add just under 280,000 more viewers to the Game 1 total.

Well that's no fun. Why should baseball count the viewers overseas watching the World Series games? These are foreigners. They ain't Americans. If they ain't from America, they can't count as people watching the World Series. If only there were a way to build a virtual wall around the World Series so foreigners couldn't watch the games on television.

Still, there’s no avoiding the reality that the World Series is not what it used to be.

There's no avoiding the reality that many top-rated television shows aren't what they used to be. The NFL seems to be an exception. This is probably because the NFL is insanely popular.

Stephen A. Greyser, a professor at Harvard Business School who specializes in sports management, said the late start times of the games — intended to maximize advertising revenues — did not help matters. “If the premier part of your product starts after 8 Eastern time and it’s during the week or on Sunday night, it’s really hard to develop young fans,” he said.

While I do understand this reasoning to a certain extent, the NFL has three games per week that are considered marquee games that networks pay a lot of money to broadcast and they all start after 8pm Eastern time. These games still get good ratings and the NFL doesn't seem to be losing young fans. I do agree it would be nice to start the World Series a little before 8pm, but there is always the west coast to worry about. San Francisco Giants fans probably want to watch their team play, but would be sad if the game started at 3pm or 4pm on a weekday.

This is just the first year of Fox’s agreement to televise the World Series through 2021. There is time for ratings to improve.

It sounds like they are pretty happy with the ratings. They aren't complaining and have even used the postseason as a method to improve recognition of the Fox Sports 1 brand. If FOX really wasn't happy with postseason ratings (and the ratings of the World Series) I would think they wouldn't put playoff games on Fox Sports 1. Maybe this is just an assumption I am making.

And in one sense, the series is off to a good start: It’s 1-1, which means there’s a decent chance that it could turn into a close contest, with all of the attendant drama. And presumably interest.

In another sense the series is not off to a good start. The entire sport of baseball has just died so the series is canceled.

Mike Mulvihill, the senior vice president of programs for Fox Sports, stressed that the audience size depended heavily on attention growing as the series unfolded. “At Fox we root for whichever team lost the previous game until we get to Game 7,” he said.

Wait, so more people will watch once the series becomes more interesting? What a novel train of thought.

Of the current series, he added, “The ratings are exactly where we thought they would be.” He noted that the games still tended to beat almost everything they competed with in prime time, and greatly improved the ratings for the Fox prime-time schedule. 

(Bengoodfella throws his hands in the air) Exactly! The ratings aren't good, but they beat almost everything else in primetime and they are better ratings than "Hell's Kitchen" or another FOX show. So while baseball ratings are declining, the sport is still drawing a lot of interest compared to the other prime time programming on television. Baseball ratings should be compared to other prime time programming from the year 2014 rather than being compared to World Series games from when Ronald Reagan was President of the United States.

That is especially true this year when Fox has seen its prime-time ratings for its regular schedule plummet.

Don't try to act like only FOX has had their ratings decline for the prime time schedule. It's happening to other networks as well.

The World Series has gone to seven games only once since 2002: the 2011 matchup between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Texas Rangers. More than 25 million people tuned in for the deciding game.

WOW! That's as many viewers as a World Cup game between the United States and Portugal! How in the heck could baseball be declining if a World Series Game 7 draws as much interest as a soccer match that takes place once every four years? No time to switch the narrative around that baseball is dying. Just move on and pretend this isn't true.

“If they split the next two games, I think the ratings will be adequate, respectable O.K.,” Mr. Pilson said. “You get to a Game 7, and if you’re lucky at that point, they will probably be pretty good.”

But baseball will still be dying though, right? Because that's the assumption that is constantly being worked under. World Series ratings are down, baseball isn't alive and (ignore the revenues!) even though a Game 7 of the World Series could match the ratings these authors are comparing the World Series ratings too, just ignore that. Baseball is dying because it doesn't get the ratings of events like a World Cup match receives...except when the World Series does draw ratings like a World Cup match of course. 

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

0 comments Wallace Matthews Tells Us Alex Rodriguez is Not Lou Gehrig; Also Reminds Us that Fire is Hot

I spend more time than I would like writing about columns that eviscerate Alex Rodriguez and it feels like I am defending him, which isn't my intention at all. Of course now it looks like A-Rod is going to get hit hard by MLB for his affiliation with Biogenesis, so who the hell would want to defend him for anything? I figured I would post this even though A-Rod's fight to re-join the Yankees has been undermined by his own self. This is what I get for sitting on column and not writing on it until a couple of days ago. I think it shows the topic of A-Rod seems to bring a lot of columnists' blood to it's boiling point and gibberish tends to get written due to this. Today, Wallace Matthews tells us that A-Rod is not Lou Gehrig and then manages to criticize A-Rod for trying to come back from a hip injury to help the Yankees win games. It's a nice balance Wallace shows. He criticizes A-Rod for being overpaid, but also criticizes A-Rod for daring to rehab from his injury and re-join the Yankees team. Of course if A-Rod didn't play for the Yankees anymore then who would Wallace and the rest of the New York sports media pick on?

This column is called "New York Yankees won't get Independence from Alex Rodriguez" and it was written on July 4. Get it? It was written on Independence Day and that's exactly what the Yankees won't be getting from Alex Rodriguez. This is journalism, people. Step back if you can't handle the awesomeness that Wallace Matthews is putting right in your face. 

On July 4, 1939, Lou Gehrig, a 35-year-old man dying of an insidious disease that would one day bear his name, stood before a bank of microphones set up at home plate at the old Yankee Stadium and famously proclaimed himself "the luckiest man on the face of the earth."

On the same day 74 years later, in the pages of a newspaper, Alex Rodriguez, a 38-year-old man in the prime of health and with another $114 million guaranteed him, portrayed himself as a beleaguered victim of circumstances heroically determined to fight on despite what he believes to be the unwarranted scorn of his employers and many of his team's fans.

A-Rod is in the prime of his health except for the injuries that have prevented him from playing at all during the 2013 season. Point taken though. A-Rod isn't Lou Gehrig. In fact, few people are Lou Gehrig so this is kind of a dumb way to start off a column. A-Rod deserves whatever MLB throws at him, but he wasn't Lou Gehrig long before he was tied to Biogenesis.

There's a reason Gehrig was known as The Iron Horse, and many reasons A-Rod is known by several other nicknames, at least one of which also has the word "horse" in it.

Actually Wallace, the word "centaur" does not have "horse" in it, but I think A-Rod is the only one that considers himself a centaur anyway. But yes, no one likes A-Rod and how dare he attempt to re-join the Yankees. He needs to stay away from ever playing baseball again so Wallace can keep talking about how useless and overpaid he is. If A-Rod plays well then he might start to look even somewhat worth the money he is getting paid and Wallace Matthews can't have that. So Wallace is probably thrilled that A-Rod is going to be suspended hard by MLB.

"My mom's had a hard time with all of this the last nine months, watching everything," Rodriguez told USA Today's Bob Nightengale. "My god, I hate to see her go through this. And my daughters are sitting there and watching their dad. I want to make them proud. I want to make my mom proud."

A couple of points here:

1. A-Rod is talking about what he has caused his family members to go through and how he wants to get back on the field and make them proud. He's not feeling bad for himself, but simply noting that he has let his family down and doesn't want to do that anymore.

2. The fact A-Rod's family members are going through something is A-Rod's fault. Outside of the injuries he has gone through, nearly every other issue has been A-Rod's fault or partly been his doing. So I don't feel bad for him.

3. A-Rod is a dipshit, but I have a hard time eviscerating him for wanting to get healthy and produce on the field for the Yankees. Maybe I give him too much benefit of the doubt. He's an ass and he is a cheater, but he really seems like he wants to play baseball again. It doesn't excuse his cheating obviously.

Never mind that whatever Alex Rodriguez's mother has been "going through" over the past nine months, or even nine years, is most likely because of the actions of her son,

I don't think at any point in that article A-Rod tried to make it seem like he wasn't the cause of what they were "going through." In fact, here are some quotes from A-Rod in this very USA Today column that Wallace Matthews is referring to and these are quotes Wallace intentionally leaves out because it doesn't fit the agenda he has:

"I'm the first one to say last year that I stunk,'' Rodriguez says. "It was a bloodbath. I'm not running away from that.

"It's the (expletive) pink elephant in the room, I know I'm better than that.''

Yeah, "the pink elephant." Only A-Rod would say "pink elephant" instead of just "elephant." 

"I've got to be honest with myself,'' Rodriguez says, "I haven't played well for a long time. I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I'm going to go out and hit 50 home runs, or any of that craziness. But I can be someone who can have a big impact in the middle of our lineup.

"Just to have the opportunity to put on the pinstripes, and compete again at Yankee Stadium, and helping my team win, it's a day that I've been dreaming about a long time now.

What an asshole, right? A-Rod didn't say much about Biogenesis on advice of his attorney, but he clearly seems to be taking responsibility for his play on the field. He won't take responsibility for Biogenesis (not yet), but it seems somewhat clear to me he knows that A-Rod isn't looking to cash a paycheck, blame others, then go home. He wants to play again, or at least have the chance to strike out and get booed again.

Of course Wallace also leaves out how Derek Jeter defended A-Rod, but this type of thing is only used to show what a great guy Jeter is as opposed to being used for the media to look in the mirror occasionally about their treatment of A-Rod.

"Why would he be a distraction?'' Jeter told reporters. "You guys (in the media) may be a distraction to him if you ask him questions, but I've never seen how someone can be a distraction to a team, you know what I mean? Because we don't have to deal with it.

"As far as (reporters) being a distraction to him, I'm sure he probably gets tired of answering questions. There's no way he can be a distraction to us."

For Yankees fans, the bottom line is this: On July 4, 2013, Alex Rodriguez made it clear that there will be no Independence Day for them, not from him, anyway.

And herein lies my issue with Wallace Matthews writing this column. Wallace wants to rip A-Rod for being overpaid and wants to rip him for daring to work to come back from his injury so he can re-join the Yankees team. The bottom line is Wallace doesn't want A-Rod to come back because he wants to keep calling A-Rod useless. So Wallace decides to start ripping A-Rod for even daring to not give up on the Yankees.

So if A-Rod came out and stated he was just quitting baseball, would Wallace Matthews applaud this decision? Obviously he wants the Yankees to be rid of A-Rod, so does Wallace think it is a noble endeavor for A-Rod to just quit now and not try to play for the Yankees this season? Something tells me if A-Rod quit on the Yankees Wallace would rip him for that. It's a no-win situation that A-Rod has put himself in with the New York media. No matter what he does, they will criticize him. What's so funny is that is it incredibly easy to criticize A-Rod, but still the New York media has to resort to accusing him of insurance fraud and mocking his attempts to play out the remaining years of his contract. It's over the top at times.

In other words, perish those thoughts of early retirement or demanding a trade or being willing to negotiate a payout of the five years remaining on his contract.

Because quitting on the Yankees or demanding a trade is a much more team-oriented way of Alex Rodriguez ending his career. Can you imagine how Wallace Matthews would tear into A-Rod if he demanded a trade or just retired? Wallace would destroy A-Rod for daring to demand a trade after all the money the Yankees gave him and how patient they were with his struggles. Wallace would call A-Rod a "quitter" if he just retired now. There's no doubt in my mind this is what would happen. So for Wallace to suggest A-Rod take early retirement or demand a trade is ridiculous because if A-Rod did either of these things we would still get a shitty column saying that A-Rod is not Lou Gehrig.

Alex Rodriguez sounds as if he's determined to remain a Yankee until the bitter end.

Dedication and the unwillingness to give up in the face of increased scrutiny and adversity. These are not characteristics you want in a professional athlete.

The objectionable part is that A-Rod is trying to portray himself as fighting the good fight, a noble man attempting to triumph over an army of haters.

What is objectionable to me is that Wallace Matthews doesn't realize this statement is half-true. I don't think A-Rod is fighting the good fight, but ignoring the Biogenesis scandal, he really is attempting to triumph over an army of haters. The army of haters are the writers like Wallace Matthews who will criticize A-Rod no matter what decision he makes. If A-Rod quits, he gets called a quitter, if A-Rod fights back from an injury, he's told he isn't wanted.

Just about every bit of the imagined "adversity" Alex Rodriguez thinks he is confronting is of his own making.

To an extent this is true. I'm not sure the injury he suffered to his hip was of his own making, but I guess that injury is sort of his fault for being a human.

Also, Wallace is making words up that A-Rod spoke now. Go search the Bob Nightengale interview with A-Rod. Here's the link. I'll wait. Do a search for the word "adversity." You won't find it because at no point did A-Rod use that word to describe what he is facing. So I'm not sure where Wallace's "adversity" reference comes from since A-Rod never actually used this word. I would expect nothing less from Wallace though. He has plenty of ammo to criticize A-Rod, yet he insists on stretching the truth even the tiniest bit to make A-Rod seem worse than he is. So Wallace has used a word in parenthesis quoting A-Rod that A-Rod didn't ever say.

He is the one who chose to live a high-profile lifestyle, and then complained about all the media attention it draws, sort of like the kid who kills his own parents and then begs for leniency on the grounds he is an orphan.

Except A-Rod is worse than a murderer. He's like a murderer of murderers except that he is a murderer of murderers that only murders puppies, kittens, children and rare pandas when he isn't murdering murderers.

He is the one who chose to play in high-stake, possibly illegal, poker games -- and then to continue playing in them after MLB and the Yankees ordered him not to.

Michael Jordan played high-stake poker games all the time. I guess because he is Michael Jordan then that is no big deal. Charles Barkley and Charles Oakley played in these games as well. My point is that A-Rod isn't the first athlete to pay in high-stake poker games.

He is the one who chose to put part of the blame for his steroid abuse on his cousin Yuri Sucart -- and then to continue to employ him as a go-fer after the Yankees ordered him not to.

He is the one who chose to have his hip surgeon, Dr. Bryan Kelly, speak to a reporter and lay out a preemptive denial that his hip problems were caused by steroid abuse after his team had ordered the doctor to keep all information about A-Rod's medical condition confidential.

I don't think anyone will argue A-Rod has handled himself well throughout his career. This still doesn't explain why A-Rod should be criticized for working hard to re-join the Yankees this year. Also, the Yankees do a lot of "ordering" don't they? Maybe the team should order itself to develop some better organizational minor league depth so when injuries occur they aren't struggling to find backups.

He is the one who chose to give an interview to a national magazine ripping Derek Jeter.

That's really what this is about. Writers like Wallace Matthews won't ever forgive A-Rod for ripping Derek Jeter. All coverage of A-Rod will remain negative for time immemorial due to his previous comments about Derek Jeter.

He is the one who, while in the midst of a horrendous October slump in the middle of a series his team was about to get swept out of, chose to proposition a woman in the field-level seats at Yankee Stadium, in full view of teammates, fans and team officials.

Again, with so many things that A-Rod has done wrong why pick one criticism that had no impact on his performance on the field and is irrelevant to his return from injury?

But taken together, they paint a picture of a man living a life of singular privilege, without boundaries or respect for any authority other than his own.

It's almost like someone who will make $353 million in his career is used to playing by his own rules. Imagine that. How unforeseen.

But to live that life of privilege and wealth and try to portray it as the equivalent of working on a chain gang? That is an insult and an affront.

I'm assuming everyone who reads this blog can read English and is literate, so go read that Bob Nightengale interview with A-Rod and see if at any point you feel like he is portraying himself as working on a chain gang. He says the typical A-Rod denial of the Biogenesis accusations, but mostly tries to show resolve to bounce back from his injuries and contribute to the Yankees this season. The statements he makes about doubters and people who don't like him is sort of true. Wallace Matthews' column is an example of this. He is criticizing A-Rod for showing resolve and trying to live up to his massive contract. Naturally, Wallace wants to portray A-Rod in a false light simply because Wallace is one of the doubters and will criticize A-Rod no matter what he does. It's so easy to criticize A-Rod, but you can always tell which writers truly don't like him by how they will over-criticize him and try to twist words A-Rod says to paint them in a negative light.

But for more than 15 years now, Alex Rodriguez has lived in that upper-echelon and enjoyed its incredible perks.

Now, he tries to make you believe that his life is no different from that of a Roman gladiator who has just been given the thumbs-down by the bloodthirsty Colosseum crowd. He portrays it as the fight of his life.

A-Rod may get suspended for 100 games due to the Biogenesis situation and he is a 38 year old man who just had serious hip surgery. It is a fight for his career right now.

On this day 74 years ago, Lou Gehrig never knew the joy of having children, the security of earning even $100,000 in a year or the satisfaction of seeing 40 candles on his birthday, and called himself lucky.

The prospect of immediate death changes a person's perspective on the world. Anyone who knows someone who has experienced the prospect of immediate death knows this is true. So this isn't exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Lou Gehrig was a great guy and A-Rod isn't. If we compared Derek Jeter to Mother Teresa then Jeter would come off looking pretty bad too.

If he really wants to know why more people aren't on his side, the answer is right there, etched in stone in his own words, thoughts and deeds.

While this is true, would quitting his rehab from the hip injury, demanding a trade or simply retiring now make him a better person in terms of his thoughts and deeds? Of course not. I don't understand why Wallace thinks quitting or demanding a trade would suddenly make A-Rod a better person. Wallace doesn't want A-Rod back on the Yankees team and would criticize A-Rod for quitting on the Yankees. The only thing A-Rod could do to please Matthews is up and die. At least then A-Rod could give an inspirational speech and the parallel to Lou Gehrig would sound more reasonable.