Very reluctantly, and quite frankly because he hasn't written a column since June 18 and the SimmonsClones won't stand for their hero to stop writing despite Bill's desperate attempts to stop writing, Bill Simmons is going to help the Lakers fix themselves. Despite the fact the Lakers haven't ever really shown they need to be fixed, Bill volunteers himself for the job anyway. Hey, he's got a write a column again at some point and his brain isn't exactly kicking out new material at a fast pace, so this is what his readers get stuck with reading.
I know a Celtics fan should never try to help the Lakers. I know I should
bite my tongue. I know I should hope Jimmy Buss keeps ruining his
family's team,
And really, who else is intelligent and capable enough to help the Lakers other than Bill Simmons? Plus, if Bill focuses on the disaster that is the Lakers he won't have to focus on the Celtics blowing up their entire team and starting a 2-3 year (minimum) rebuilding process while drafting highly incapable big men like Colton Iverson and Fab Melo (wouldn't it have been easier to just forfeit a first round draft choice as opposed to drafting Melo?) to go along with the non-franchise cornerstone Jeff Green and the constantly disgruntled Rajon Rondo. Bill will do anything to keep our minds off the Celtics and on to another NBA team that may not have a bright immediate future ahead of them. Bill has to prepare for the post-Garnett/Allen/Pierce Celtics world, so don't be surprised if he becomes an NBA widow soon and starts talking about the Clippers more than the Celtics in his once a month columns.
But here's the problem …
You are the only one who considers yourself qualified to fix the Lakers?
I love making fake NBA trades, figuring out blueprints for franchises
and determining the fastest, most efficient ways to save them. That's
just who I am. I'm a weirdo.
This is why in his own head Bill would make such a great General Manager. Who says "no" to these fake NBA trades? You can't argue with the brain of Bill Simmons.
I found myself clicking on the Lakers' salary page just out of curiosity
… but then my wheels started turning … and one thing led to another …
and suddenly I found myself helping the Lakers.
You found yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers? But aren't they your sworn enemies as a Celtics fan? You must really love fake trades if you find yourself unnecessary italics helping the Lakers become a better NBA team.
In the NBA, you want to be either really good or really bad. You never want to land between those two "reallys" for long.
Tell that to the Raptors/Bobcats fans or fans of the Los Angeles Clippers who have been fans of the Clippers for longer than five years. Sometimes being really bad isn't a good thing.
You don't want to be squeezed into the no. 8 seed or keep finishing 12th
or 13th in every lottery. Basically, you don't want to be the Milwaukee
Bucks.
If you can't compete for the title, why not bottom out in the most flagrantly offensive way possible?
Other than it demoralizes your fan base, creates a losing culture around the team, the players on the current team become apathetic due to the organization's lack of concern for winning, and doesn't guarantee you will land the #1 overall pick due to the NBA's lottery system?
Of course, that's something the Lakers have never, ever done. They
picked first in the 1979 and 1982 drafts (Magic and Worthy) by fleecing
laughingstock franchises of their draft picks — not by being the laughingstock franchise.
Says the fan of the NBA team that dealt the first overall pick in 1980 for Robert Parish and Kevin McHale and had the #2 overall pick in 1986 fresh off winning an NBA title because they traded Gerald Henderson to Seattle. It's not often Boston is the laughingstock either. Just wanted to point this out.
They miraculously turned Vlade Divac, three cartons of Marlboro Reds and
a pound of phlegm into a raw high schooler named Kobe Bryant.
To be fair, there wasn't a long track record of high school players skipping college and thriving in the pros at this point and the Lakers were taking a risk by trading a proven center for a late, late lottery pick (the 13th pick). Divac was coming off a season where he had put up 12 points, 8 rebounds, 3 assists, and 1.7 blocks as a 27 year old. These days a guy like that gets a multi-year contract for $10-$11 million per year. It's not like Bryant fell in the Lakers' laps, they took a chance to acquire him.
No professional sports franchise has been this consistently good for
this long: not the Yankees, not the Canadiens, not the Steelers, not
anybody.
Yes, but now they need fixing that only Bill Simmons can provide.
But desperate times call for desperate measures. Their best player is
hitting Year 18 and rehabbing from the worst sports injury an older
player can have. Their second-best player just ditched them.
Notice how Bill just wrote an entire column about how Dwight Howard has hit his peak and is declining as a player, but now he needs to make it seem like the Lakers are losing an important player, so he suddenly considers Howard more valuable than Pau Gasol. In Bill's 2012 Trade Value column he had Gasol at #17 (and bumped Gasol this year because he is underused) and Bill had Howard at #18 in his 2013 Trade Value column.
Their coach is realistically two years away from taking over the
Minnesota Lynx or the Pepperdine Waves. And they need to sell the
illusion of hope to their fans, which means they need to save as much
cap space as possible for LeBron, which means they can't add ANY
contracts that expire after next summer.
At least they didn't draft Fab Melo. That's gotta be some consolation.
Fact: This year's Lakers team will be undeniably worse than last year's
Lakers team … a team that didn't make the playoffs until Game 82.
"Fact." Apparently Bill Simmons is trying to write like Dwight Schrute talked. If he mentions something about a beet farm, I'm done writing.
Fact: This is bleak. Really, really bleak.
Not really. The Lakers could conceivably cash in on some free agents in one year. It's already been conceded by Bill that the Lakers have a very, very attractive franchise and city to play and the Lakers will have $50 million in 2014 to improve their team through free agency. Struggling for one year isn't really, really, bleak. The Celtics went from owning the 5th pick in the draft to winning the NBA Title in the span of a year half a decade ago. Things don't look good in the short term for the Lakers, but struggling for one year and still being the Lakers isn't really, really bleak.
OK, so they have two inherent advantages. First, the Lakers have
only one contract on their books for the 2014-15 season: Steve Nash for
$9.7 million. They might be $50 million under the cap next summer —
perfect timing for an all-you-can-eat buffet of free-agent stars
headlined by LeBron, who's only (a) the best player since Michael
Jordan, (b) someone who wants to be a "global icon," and (c) someone
with an established track record of treating free agency like he's
organizing a bank heist with his buddies.
So the first part of Bill's plan to fix the Lakers is to sign LeBron James. Where would we be without his insight into this matter? Maybe the Lakers could sign another really, really talented player who is a free agent and the Lakers could turn their team around while moving on from the Kobe Bryant-era and it would all be because of Bill Simmons' grand plan.
Famous basketball players gravitate to the Lakers because of their
storied history, and because Los Angeles remains the easiest American
city for any wealthy celebrity to live in.
It looks very bleak for the Lakers though, doesn't it? I hope Bill's plan of using $50 million in cap space to lure free agents to a storied franchise in a city where celebrities love to live works out. It seems pretty unlikely this risky plan will work.
Celebrities in L.A. can be around other celebrities all the time, and if
there's one thing celebrities love, it's being around other
celebrities. If they want to dabble in music or movies or any other
ego-fueled creative project, or meet just about any heavy hitter
business dude on the planet, they have those options here.
BUT HOW IS BILL GOING TO TURN THE LAKERS AROUND WITH ALL THIS CAP SPACE THE LAKERS WILL HAVE IN 2014?
As recently as three years ago, had you told any fan of the other 29
teams, "In 2014, the Lakers will have $50 million in cap space during a
loaded summer for free agents," their reaction would have been, "We're
all screwed." But when they're being run by someone who can successfully
be compared to Tommy Boy?
Let's investigate the logic that Bill is using here. He believes the biggest thing holding the Lakers back is their idiot owner, yet part of Bill's plan to turn the Lakers around relies on their owner being smart and having a plan. Here's the problem...if we assume Jim Buss is smart enough to have a plan and follow the plan, then we could also assume Jim Buss is smart enough to realize his plan needs to revolve around having $50 million in cap space and luring free agents to Los Angeles. What I'm saying is that Bill poo-poos the whole "We have a shit-ton of money and now we just go after the free agents we want" plan because the owner isn't smart enough to realize he can do this, but then part of Bill's plan is for the Lakers to have a shit-ton of money and go after the free agents they want. Basically Bill muddies the water enough to where his less discerning readers won't realize Bill is proposing essentially the same plan he doesn't think Jim Buss is capable of pulling off.
Making matters worse, the Lakers lost their L.A. basketball monopoly.
This isn't a real thing.
They've been spending money in the most anti–Donald Sterling ways
possible, building around the league's most expensive coach (Doc
Rivers), a $107 million point guard (Chris Paul), a $95 million,
high-flying power forward (Blake Griffin) and a slew of quality role
players. It's almost like the Lakers and Clippers switched bodies. And
actually, we can't rule this out.
Actually we can rule it out since the Lakers and Clippers don't have bodies because they are organizations not human beings.
So if we ever needed a "Save the Lakers" plan, it's right now. Here's
how Wolf Pope Simmons would hypothetically save the Lakers in 10
hypothetical steps.
Bill has to use 10 steps to get where he is going to make his plan seem more complicated. I can sum up his plan in three steps.
1. Save the cap space during 2013 by not taking on large contracts.
2. Accept 2013 may be a tough year and know if the Lakers miss the playoffs then they have a lottery pick and a lot of cap space.
3. Use this cap space to lure attractive free agents to Los Angeles and hope they get a Top 5 pick in the third consecutive "loaded" draft that may not end up being all that loaded.
There. That's a plan and it could work. Of course if Bill limited his plan to three steps he wouldn't be rambling, his column would be shorter, and he couldn't try to desperately show off his ability to jump on the Andrew Wiggins bandwagon...while also looking at Scout.com's Top 100 2013 class to see that Jabari Parker and Julius Randle are also highly rated and they may leave for the NBA Draft next year so he will name-drop them to make it seem like he knows all about them outside of highlights he has seen on YouTube.
1. Don't be afraid to suck all kinds of suck for one season.
Two facts about the 2014 draft. First, if you were ranking the
Can't-Miss NBA Prospects of the 21st Century, Kansas freshman Andrew
Wiggins would rank behind LeBron, but would probably land right on that
second tier with Durant, Oden and Carmelo. He's T-Mac 2.0 by all
accounts.
Then Bill provides a YouTube link (what else would Bill provide?) to Andrew Wiggins' Hoop Mixtape, which if there is a better measure of a player's ability to play basketball then a YouTube Hoop Mixtape I certainly can't think of it.
There's a reason the Tankapalooza committee (I'm the chairman) is
thinking about changing the name of Tankapalooza 2014 to Riggin' for
Wiggins.
Bill is so pumped to see Wiggins play he may even watch a few Kentucky games this year to see how good Wiggins is at playing college-level competition. At least I'm betting Bill believes Wiggins is going to play for Kentucky this upcoming college basketball season.
Second, it's the rare NBA draft that's deep AND top-heavy.
By the way, the draft doesn't occur for another 11 months but Bill already knows every player that will declare for the 2014 NBA Draft. Incredibly impressive, isn't it?
ESPN draft guru and former The O.C. star Chad Ford pointed out
that, in 2013, he broke the draft down by tiers — with Tier 1 being
"potential franchise players," Tier 2 being "potential All-Stars," Tier 3
being "potential starters," and so on — and there wasn't a single 2013
draft prospect in Tier 1 or Tier 2. In 2014? Right now, we have eight
guys in those top two tiers, and that's without factoring in the
possibility of one or two more breakout stars.
So there are a lot of potential stars in Chad "Darko for President" Ford's arbitrarily selected tiers? Because these tiers are based on fact and zero speculation color me impressed.
There's also a chance that Kentucky power forward Julius Randle might
turn "Wiggins vs. Randle" into a "Durant vs. Oden"–type debate, and that
Duke's Jabari Parker might be looming as a Carmelo-like sleeper.
Except I would bet anything these two players are already in Chad Ford's Tier 1 or Tier 2, so they would not count as breakout stars and they would simply be moving around from Tier 1 to 2. Also, I would love to hear Bill's opinion of the potential breakout stars in the 2014 NBA Draft, simply for the sake of hilarity.
Why not take your lumps, Jimmy? Your fan base is more sophisticated than
anyone realizes. They've had four generations of success.
It's hard to stereotype an entire fan base, but the Lakers have had a ton of success over the last 40 years so I'm not entirely sure how the fans would respond to a 30-52 season.
They'd be fine with throwing away ONE season. Just not two.
Bill speaks for the Lakers fan base now. He's "The Sports Guy" so of course he speaks for EVERY team's fan base...or at least he thinks he does.
2. Clear every dollar off your 2014-15 cap. Get to zero, or close.
Bill thinks the Lakers need to do the thing that he doesn't believe Jim Buss is smart enough to do. Again, if we assume Buss is smart enough to clear money off the cap and then spend $50 million in free agency then that's the obvious plan (as well as being the plan Bill is proposing here, just in a more complicated fashion to make it seem like it is an original plan).
On paper, the 2013-14 Lakers could take the 2009-10 Heat's game plan to
another level by jettisoning every contract while also landing a
top-five lottery pick. But they have to worsen this year's roster.
They are going to trade a first round pick for Fab Melo?
3. Trade Steve Nash to Toronto.
Admittedly, Nash doesn't have much market value right now. He's 39
years old, his body is breaking down in a variety of ways, he seemed a
step and a half slow last season, he's a turnstile defensively, and he's
making $9.3 million in 2014 and $9.7 million in 2015.
But who cares about logic? This isn't logic Bill is using. Bill is just pretending trades can be accepted by one side of the trade even if they don't make sense for both sides of the trade. It's really the only way he can make his plan work, by assuming the Raptors will take on Steve Nash's contract, even though the Raptors just dumped Andrea Bargnani and his contract.
Other than that, he's pretty enticing. But you know where he's still a
hero? CANADA! What would be better than Nash finishing his career on
Canada's only NBA team?
It doesn't make sense, but it fits Bill's agenda. He can make nonsensical moves if he wants to rosterbate and make himself feel like the NBA trade king. He's done it for most of his ESPN career. There's no way the Raptors would take on Nash's contract.
Now here's where you say, Wait a second, the Raptors just hired Masai Ujiri from Denver. That dude is a shrewd mf'er — he'd never trade for Nash. Au contraire! Thanks to Rudy Gay's onerously onerous deal, DeMar DeRozan's extension,
the cap-clogging quartet of Landry Fields, Marcus Camby, Tyler
Hansbrough and Steve Novak (nearly $20 million combined in 2014-15) and a
few other commitments, Toronto can't become a free-agent player until
the summer of 2015 ... right as Nash's deal is expiring. So why not
bring him aboard as their feel-good Canadian basketball ambassador?
(Shakes head sadly) I don't know why Ujiri would spend $19 million to feel-good.
Do you realize trading for Nash would immediately become one of Canada's five greatest NBA moments ever?
Do you realize how incredibly irrelevant this is when it comes to whether the Raptors would choose to trade for Steve Nash or not?
Anyway, here's my offer: Nash for Linas Kleiza's expiring contract and
Aaron Gray's expiring contract. I can't do better than that.
Generally rebuilding teams choose to trade away expiring contracts so they can use some of that precious cap space on players who are 40 years old and want a chance to play for an NBA Title. And oh yeah, in Bill's absolute genius GM move to trade Steve Nash to Toronto he left out the human part of this trade where Nash won't want to play for a non-contending team over the next two seasons. Who cares what Steve Nash wants though? It's not like he is a real person or a player's opinion on a trade could ever impact the Czar of the ESPN Trade Machine's brilliant ideas.
Bill consistently leaves out the human element of his proposed trades. Why would the Raptors take on salary when they want to get rid of salary? Why would Steve Nash choose to be traded to a non-contender when he signed with the Lakers (in a sign-and-trade) to win an NBA Title? In the middle of Bill's brilliant "who says 'no'?" trade ideas he tends to forget the human element of his rosterbation.
4. Trade Pau Gasol.
You know who's not helping us Riggin' for Wiggins? A future Hall of
Famer playing for a new contract. I don't need Pau dropping 23 and 11
every night.
This still wouldn't guarantee the Lakers could get Wiggins, but whatever.
Destination No. 1: Hey, Cleveland, why roll the dice on Andrew Bynum's
fusilli knee ligaments when you can rent Pau in a contract year? You
know he'll be motivated. You know he's one of the league's best 25
players when healthy
Bill referred to Dwight Howard as the Lakers second-best player earlier in this column. So doesn't that mean he considers Howard to be among the league's best 25 players when healthy? Then what was this column all about? I don't think that column reads as one of the league's Top 25 players is a free agent, but reads as more of a cautionary tale about signing Howard. Yet, now Bill considers Howard to be the Lakers second-best player and considers the Lakers third-best player as a Top 25 guy when healthy. I think I'm confusing myself at this point.
Even better — this trade gives the Lakers a low-post combo of Chris
Kaman (always gets hurt) and Varejao (always gets hurt). They could be
the Twin Owww-ers. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)
Simmonsites, this is your hero. Your daddy figure and role model who you live and die with when it comes to him answering one of your emails in a mailbag. "The Twin Oww-ers," that's what Bill writes.
Destination No. 2: Flip Gasol's expiring contract to Chicago for Luol
Deng's and Kirk Hinrich's expiring contracts. Just a fascinating trade.
The Bulls know Jimmy Butler can replace Deng's minutes,
Yeah, the Bulls know this. Sure, Butler may not be able to replace Deng's production, but replacing Deng's minutes is easy.
For the Lakers, they'd keep Deng for a couple of months before rerouting
him to a contender for expiring deals and a pick. (You don't need Deng
in a contract year making you slightly better than you need to be.)
This is typical Bill Simmons logic. Trade for Deng under the assumption you can trade him again for expiring deals and a pick. Again, let's forget the human element, such as what if there isn't a team willing to trade expiring contracts and a pick for Deng or the Lakers can get expiring contracts but not a pick? It doesn't matter because reality is only nitpicking to Bill when he is rosterbating.
The Lakers can't sign LeBron after he wins his third straight NBA title
for the simple reason that, in the history of basketball, the best
player on a championship team has NEVER subsequently ditched that team.
And we all know LeBron has no ego so he wouldn't want to prove he can win an NBA Title for the NBA's most storied franchise without Chris Bosh and Dwyane Wade. It may not happen, but it is a possibility.
That's why the Lakers need to improve the Bulls — they can't get LeBron
unless Chicago, Houston, Oklahoma City, Indiana or Golden State beats
the Heat. And Chicago's the best bet of them all.
Let's look at Bill's logic here. He thinks the Lakers should improve the Bulls so the Bulls can beat the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs 10 months from now, so then LeBron will feel okay about leaving the Heat in free agency to go to Los Angeles? There's only like 20 assumptions in this scenario to get to Bill's desired conclusion. Assumptions like:
The Bulls aren't trying to get LeBron after the 2014 season themselves so they would trade expiring deals.
The Bulls are going to be healthy enough 10 months from now to beat the Heat.
The Bulls will match up with the Heat in the 2014 NBA Playoffs and won't get knocked out earlier by Indiana.
LeBron James won't re-sign with the Heat by mid-season next year.
LeBron James won't leave Miami regardless of whether he wins another NBA Title, due to Wade starting to further decline.
Chicago really is the best bet to beat the Heat.
The Lakers think they can't get LeBron to sign with them regardless of whether he wins another title with the Heat.
There are more, but I'm growing bored...
6. Since you're sucking anyway, bring back as many popular former Lakers as possible.
I'd go further than that — I'd also bring back beloved veterans Derek
Fisher and Luke Walton for the veteran's minimum, then keep my 15th
roster spot open and spend the season signing old Lakers favorites
(Robert Horry, Rick Fox, Michael Cooper, Sam Perkins, etc.) to a series
of 10-day contracts.
Important note: Lakers fans would LOVE this.
Yes, I'm sure Lakers fans would love it if the organization further made a mockery of the 2013-2014 team, as well as ruined their memories of favorite Lakers players. I'm sure Kobe Bryant would be thrilled to play for a team that brings back 50 year olds to sit at the end of the bench out of nostalgia.
Then Bill suggest Jack Nicholson sits out the season and gives his seat to Phil Jackson. Obviously this would never happen, but I do actually enjoy this idea. Though by doing this it would further disappoint some Lakers fans when Jackson doesn't come back to coach the 2014-2015 team.
8. Keep Mike D'Antoni for the entire year.
When I was going over my tentative "Save the Lakers" plan last night
with my friend Lewis (a Lakers nut who's onboard with everything you
just read),
Bill's one Lakers fan friend think these are all good ideas and this means these are all good ideas! NO ONE DENIES THIS!
"Are you kidding?" Lewis yelped. "YOU KEEP HIM! YOU KEEP HIM THE WHOLE
SEASON! WE WANT THE WORST COACH POSSIBLE!!!!! WHY WOULD YOU EVER FIRE
D'ANTONI!"
I would be much more moved by the fact Lewis agrees with Bill if I didn't think Bill surrounded himself with "yes men" who helped massage his ego and make him feel like everything he does is right. I don't have faith Bill has friends who will challenge his ideas.
9. Delay Kobe's return for as long as possible.
I'm not gonna lie — this is the shakiest part of my rehab plan.
The shakiest part of the rehab plan is that you felt the need to use 10 steps when fewer steps are required. Oh, and you make a ton of assumptions like the Raptors will want to trade for Steve Nash and Lakers fans would be perfectly fine with a season where the team intentionally tanks and signs Sam Perkins to a 10-day contract.
Kobe cares about two things right now: Ring No. 6, and Kareem's record.
In that order. We could talk him into playing for a historically lousy
Lakers team for one season if Ring No. 6 (and maybe LeBron) was the
carrot dangling on the other end.
I think Bill is correct about what Kobe cares about right now, but this is one of the few times I think Bill is correct when he pretends he knows what is going on inside a player/coach/organization's head. This is the exception to the rule.
So he's 6,770 points away. To put that in perspective, he scored 2,133
points in 78 games last season before his Achilles ripped. This is
doable … you know, assuming he recovers from that devastating leg
injury.
Kobe would essentially have to play three or slightly more than three full seasons to take over Kareem's record. And let's be honest, he is going to have to play longer than that if he teams up with LeBron because his shots are going to decline with LeBron on the roster. If Kobe wants LeBron and Kareem's record he may have to play another four full seasons.
10. When Kobe comes back, allow him to hog the ball to alarming degrees.
You know what the best part of that plan is? Kobe's quest to score 40
every night will inadvertently become one of the more entertaining
subplots of the 2013-14 season. I'd flip over to every Lakers game just
to see how many points he had. So would you.
Actually I really wouldn't do this at all. Watching a player score as many points while ignoring the competition of the game and the flow of the offense becomes tiresome to me after a while.
Of course, they'd still be hoping that Jimmy Buss hired the right coach,
made the right lottery pick, lured LeBron, kept Kobe and spent $60
million in cap space in the best possible way …
No matter what plan is used to fix the Lakers this is a concern. Really this sentence Bill wrote is all that is needed to fix the Lakers. Hire the right people, spend money the right way and hope to hit it big in free agency. Of course Bill has to get an entire column out of the idea of fixing the Lakers so he diddles himself for 2000 words before getting to the point.
See, you need a strong owner or a front-office voice to execute a
long-term plan — like what Miami had with Pat Riley and Micky Arison
four years ago. These Lakers don't have that voice. Kobe will convince them to compete next season because he's nearing the
end of his career, and he wants to shove it in Dwight Howard's face, and
he probably believes that he and Pau can still battle anyone on any
given night. That's what makes him Kobe. And that's why I didn't mind
trying to "save" the Lakers. I know they won't do the right thing.
You know who they SHOULD be emulating, actually?
You are going to have to sit down before reading who the Lakers should be emulating because it is going to shock you. Bill Simmons, "The Boston Sports Guy" wants to tell you who the Lakers should emulate will change how you think about the world and be completely unexpected.
My beloved Celtics.
I'M SHOCKED! Bill Simmons thinks the Lakers should be like the Celtics. I can barely breathe I am so surprised.
In the span of five weeks, Boston mortally wounded next year's team by
dealing Garnett and Pierce (improving their Riggin' for Wiggins
chances);
You know every team can't get Wiggins and I can see a scenario where Jabari Parker stays at Duke for two years. My point is the 2014 NBA Draft may not be quite as loaded as anticipated. Just a thought.
Boston got back a terrible contract (Gerald Wallace) in the Nets trade so Bill is contradicting himself in a big way by saying the Lakers should emulate the Celtics. Bill suggests a strategy to fix the Lakers where they don't take on any long-term contracts and get their cap space as low to $0 as possible, but then says the Lakers should emulate the Celtics who took on a longer-term contract when trading Pierce and Garnett, as well have no immediate plans to trade Jeff Green or Brandon Bass, both of whom have relatively large cap figures. The Celtics are essentially rebuilding around some of their current players which is not at all the strategy that Bill is suggesting the Lakers use.
As always, he plays both sides so that eventually he can be right when/if the Lakers turn it around. Bill writes an entire column about how the Lakers need to clear as much cap space as possible in order to try and lure LeBron, but then says the Lakers should really emulate the Celtics, who are rebuilding around a core of players and not entirely blowing the team up. Of course both teams are in completely different rebuilding situations, but Bill's need to talk briefly about the Celtics has caused him to waffle on the intended plan in this column for the Lakers. Only Bill could write an entire column about a plan for the Lakers and then ruin his plan in the last paragraph and his readers would think nothing of it. They are just happy he writes because they adore him so much.
turned the roster over to Brad Stevens (the perfect guy for a rebuild);
How do you know Brad Stevens is the perfect guy for a rebuild? He's never coached in the NBA before. This is pure speculation.
That's a team that knows who it is, and where it is, and where it needs to be.
The Celtics still have to draft well with the first round draft picks they have acquired. Bill is proposing the Lakers rebuild through the 2014 draft and free agency, which seems to be different from the way the Celtics are rebuilding. The Celtics are looking more long-term for their rebuild. Not to mention, Bill warns against teams trying to be the 8th seed in the playoffs while rebuilding, and guess what, as the Celtics are currently constructed that's the playoff spot they could be in contention for next year. So Bill basically now thinks the Lakers should do the opposite of what he just suggested in this column by emulating the Celtics.
Can you say the same about the Lakers? My gut feeling is no … and that
in April, we'll be watching Kobe and Pau fighting for a no. 8 seed.
Damn them and their inability to tank on the off-chance they land the #1 overall pick. Really the Lakers should do what Bill suggests they do in this column or what they should really do is emulate the Celtics...that is unless Bill's suggested plan in this column works out, then that's really what the Lakers should have done. Either way, if the Lakers succeed or fail in rebuilding Bill feels comfortable in knowing he has covered every scenario to where he can claim he was right. As long as he can claim he was right and feed his ego, that's all that matters to him.
Showing posts with label fixing other people's mistakes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fixing other people's mistakes. Show all posts
Friday, July 19, 2013
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
10 comments Oh By the Way, Every MLB Team Made a Huge Mistake This Offseason
Thank God for Bleacher Report. If it weren't for the diligent reporting of Bleacher Report we wouldn't know that every MLB team made a mistake in this offseason. It's amazing to me that Bleacher Report is working with CNN now. It seems like this is like the National Enquirer doing exclusive reporting for NBC. As I have said before, there are good writers at Bleacher Report, but there are also a lot of overly-long lists and a lot of useless and pointless columns written. Today, Bleacher Report shows us the biggest mistake every MLB team made this offseason. The fans of some teams may think they didn't make a mistake this offseason. Wrong. There were mistakes made and Bleacher Report is here to point them out.
While many seem guilty of irresponsibly spending on free agents, others deserve reprimand for not pulling the trigger. In several instances, general managers missed out on great opportunities by second-guessing themselves.
Every MLB team should have traded for Felix Hernandez! Why didn't every MLB team try to do this? Stop second-guessing yourselves general managers and just do it.
The 2013 regular season will expose the following errors.
General managers, consider yourself exposed! You are in Bleacher Report's slideshow crosshairs now! There's no getting out.
Let's start the slideshow!
Arizona Diamondbacks: Trading Justin Upton for Weak Package
The Arizona Diamondbacks cannot be reprimanded for trading Justin Upton. They identified him as a poor fit for their clubhouse and organization and had a surplus of outfielders to fill the void.
(Diamondbacks Executive #1) "We have a lot of outfielders, don't we?"
(Diamondbacks Executive #2) "Yes, we do. Perhaps we should trade the most talented and promising outfielder we have."
(Diamondbacks Executive #1) "Consider it done."
Martin Prado is an impending free agent who reportedly seeks at least $12 million annually on a contract extension.
They already signed him to a 4 year $40 million deal. Next issue.
Randall Delgado has MLB experience, though there's skepticism as to whether or not he can lead a rotation without a breaking ball to miss more bats.
There's skepticism about a prospect? Well, the Diamondbacks should have insisted the Braves include a prospect that there were no questions or skepticism about. There was a grand total of zero of these prospects in the Braves system (mostly because what prospects don't have some skepticism about them? Very few), so that demand would have worked out well.
Atlanta Braves: Claiming Jordan Schafer off Waivers
This is the problem with Bleacher Report's overly-long lists. The Braves claimed Jordan Schafer off waivers and he probably isn't going to even make the team out of Spring Training. If that is a team's biggest offseason mistake then I dare say that team had zero offseason mistakes. But Bleacher Report requires really long lists for pageviews so every team has to be represented, regardless of whether it makes sense or not to include every team.
Boston Red Sox: Signing Stephen Drew
Homegrown shortstop Jose Iglesias has looked totally over-matched at the plate in limited MLB opportunities, and Xander Bogaerts isn't ready to debut.
Well clearly there is a need, so why did the Red Sox sign a shortstop? Couldn't they just leave that spot in the infield open or just move Dustin Pedroia to shortstop? Baseball players can just move wherever the fuck a team needs them to go without a decline in production, can't they?
The team has guaranteed him $9.5 million when similar stopgaps like Yuniesky Betancourt and Alex Gonzalez were available at dramatically lower prices.
Yes, but then the Red Sox would have been signing Yuniesky Betancourt or Alex Gonzalez. There's always the risk trying to sign Yuniesky Betancourt and Alex Gonzalez would eventually lead to the Red Sox signing Yuniesky Betancourt or Alex Gonzalez. That's too big of a risk to take. After all, these two shortstops are consistently the worst performers at their positions offensively. Stephen Drew was more expensive, but has a higher upside of he can stay healthy, and besides, it's only money Tyrone. The Red Sox like to spend it and if Drew stays healthy he could be worth that much money.
If the money had gone toward starting pitching, perhaps the Red Sox could have signed Anibal Sanchez instead of Ryan Dempster.
Dempster is old, but he still pitched fairly well last year. Plus, he is signed to a 2 year $27 million deal and Sanchez is signed to a more expensive 5 year $88 million deal. Signing Dempster over Sanchez gives the Red Sox more payroll flexibility in the future, and quite honestly, prevents them from signing a pitcher like Sanchez who was paid mostly based upon his potential.
Chicago Cubs: Signing Carlos Villanueva
The Chicago Cubs have splurged on the free-agent market, mainly to bolster their starting rotation. Scott Baker and Scott Feldman each received one-year contracts so that they may be flipped for prospects over the summer.
These pitchers haven't been signed to help the Cubs win games, but to get traded over the summer. The Cubs have no interest in these players pitching well and helping them wins. Not at all. They were signed purely to be trade bait.
Carlos Villanueva got $10 million to join the rotation mix.
It's a hefty price to pay a homer-prone right-hander with 56 career starts.
Villanueva got $10 million OVER TWO YEARS to join the Cubs rotation. Don't mislead your audience. Pitching isn't cheap and $5 million per year for a pitcher who is around the league average isn't a bad decision.
Plus, his presence blocks Chicago's cheap internal candidates.
I'm sure Cubs fans would want to hear more about these cheap internal candidates. I see pitchers in the Cubs farm system, but the top one is coming off Tommy John surgery and the rest don't seem quite ready to be an average MLB starter. I wish the author would do a little less making lists and more explaining statements such as this one.
Chicago White Sox: Guaranteeing Three Years to Jeff Keppinger
Jeff Keppinger was a smart addition for the Chicago White Sox, as he provides similar overall value to Kevin Youkilis at one-third the salary.
He's a smart addition but also the biggest mistake the White Sox made this offseason. You figure it out.
It's risky nonetheless to make a three-year guarantee to someone who has never played 140 games in any season.
I like the arbitrary "140 games" rule the author is instituting here. Nevermind Keppinger's value lies in being able to play multiple positions and not embarrassing himself at the plate, who wants to give him a whole $4 million per year (on average) to do these things?
Cincinnati Reds: Moving Aroldis Chapman to Starting Rotation
A dominant starter is worth much more than a dominant closer, so you can't blame the Cincinnati Reds for trying Aroldis Chapman in a larger role.
This is the second straight "mistake" an MLB team has made which the author admits actually made sense. This is what happens when a list becomes overly-long, it starts to become factually inaccurate.
The Cuban Missile will need to refine a tertiary pitch to mix in with his fastball and slider. He also has a tendency to nibble during plate appearances ("wasting" pitches), which will limit him to a short outings in the rotation.
Nearly every single MLB starter "wastes" pitches. I can think of just a few starters who did not waste pitches at some point or another. So the idea Chapman will waste pitches will run up his pitch count is true, but this isn't an indication he will fail as a starter. Plus, Chapman was a starter in Cuba, so it isn't like he doesn't know how to do it.
Making this decision led the Reds to overpay for Jonathan Broxton.
Three years $21 million? For a quality closer/set up isn't a bad deal. Broxton's 2010 and 2011 seasons seem like aberrations to me. It seems this author struggles with the idea a team has to pay to attract quality free agent talent.
Colorado Rockies: Re-Signing Jeff Francis
While many seem guilty of irresponsibly spending on free agents, others deserve reprimand for not pulling the trigger. In several instances, general managers missed out on great opportunities by second-guessing themselves.
Every MLB team should have traded for Felix Hernandez! Why didn't every MLB team try to do this? Stop second-guessing yourselves general managers and just do it.
The 2013 regular season will expose the following errors.
General managers, consider yourself exposed! You are in Bleacher Report's slideshow crosshairs now! There's no getting out.
Let's start the slideshow!
Arizona Diamondbacks: Trading Justin Upton for Weak Package
The Arizona Diamondbacks cannot be reprimanded for trading Justin Upton. They identified him as a poor fit for their clubhouse and organization and had a surplus of outfielders to fill the void.
(Diamondbacks Executive #1) "We have a lot of outfielders, don't we?"
(Diamondbacks Executive #2) "Yes, we do. Perhaps we should trade the most talented and promising outfielder we have."
(Diamondbacks Executive #1) "Consider it done."
Martin Prado is an impending free agent who reportedly seeks at least $12 million annually on a contract extension.
They already signed him to a 4 year $40 million deal. Next issue.
Randall Delgado has MLB experience, though there's skepticism as to whether or not he can lead a rotation without a breaking ball to miss more bats.
There's skepticism about a prospect? Well, the Diamondbacks should have insisted the Braves include a prospect that there were no questions or skepticism about. There was a grand total of zero of these prospects in the Braves system (mostly because what prospects don't have some skepticism about them? Very few), so that demand would have worked out well.
Atlanta Braves: Claiming Jordan Schafer off Waivers
This is the problem with Bleacher Report's overly-long lists. The Braves claimed Jordan Schafer off waivers and he probably isn't going to even make the team out of Spring Training. If that is a team's biggest offseason mistake then I dare say that team had zero offseason mistakes. But Bleacher Report requires really long lists for pageviews so every team has to be represented, regardless of whether it makes sense or not to include every team.
Boston Red Sox: Signing Stephen Drew
Homegrown shortstop Jose Iglesias has looked totally over-matched at the plate in limited MLB opportunities, and Xander Bogaerts isn't ready to debut.
Well clearly there is a need, so why did the Red Sox sign a shortstop? Couldn't they just leave that spot in the infield open or just move Dustin Pedroia to shortstop? Baseball players can just move wherever the fuck a team needs them to go without a decline in production, can't they?
The team has guaranteed him $9.5 million when similar stopgaps like Yuniesky Betancourt and Alex Gonzalez were available at dramatically lower prices.
Yes, but then the Red Sox would have been signing Yuniesky Betancourt or Alex Gonzalez. There's always the risk trying to sign Yuniesky Betancourt and Alex Gonzalez would eventually lead to the Red Sox signing Yuniesky Betancourt or Alex Gonzalez. That's too big of a risk to take. After all, these two shortstops are consistently the worst performers at their positions offensively. Stephen Drew was more expensive, but has a higher upside of he can stay healthy, and besides, it's only money Tyrone. The Red Sox like to spend it and if Drew stays healthy he could be worth that much money.
If the money had gone toward starting pitching, perhaps the Red Sox could have signed Anibal Sanchez instead of Ryan Dempster.
Dempster is old, but he still pitched fairly well last year. Plus, he is signed to a 2 year $27 million deal and Sanchez is signed to a more expensive 5 year $88 million deal. Signing Dempster over Sanchez gives the Red Sox more payroll flexibility in the future, and quite honestly, prevents them from signing a pitcher like Sanchez who was paid mostly based upon his potential.
Chicago Cubs: Signing Carlos Villanueva
The Chicago Cubs have splurged on the free-agent market, mainly to bolster their starting rotation. Scott Baker and Scott Feldman each received one-year contracts so that they may be flipped for prospects over the summer.
These pitchers haven't been signed to help the Cubs win games, but to get traded over the summer. The Cubs have no interest in these players pitching well and helping them wins. Not at all. They were signed purely to be trade bait.
Carlos Villanueva got $10 million to join the rotation mix.
It's a hefty price to pay a homer-prone right-hander with 56 career starts.
Villanueva got $10 million OVER TWO YEARS to join the Cubs rotation. Don't mislead your audience. Pitching isn't cheap and $5 million per year for a pitcher who is around the league average isn't a bad decision.
Plus, his presence blocks Chicago's cheap internal candidates.
I'm sure Cubs fans would want to hear more about these cheap internal candidates. I see pitchers in the Cubs farm system, but the top one is coming off Tommy John surgery and the rest don't seem quite ready to be an average MLB starter. I wish the author would do a little less making lists and more explaining statements such as this one.
Chicago White Sox: Guaranteeing Three Years to Jeff Keppinger
Jeff Keppinger was a smart addition for the Chicago White Sox, as he provides similar overall value to Kevin Youkilis at one-third the salary.
He's a smart addition but also the biggest mistake the White Sox made this offseason. You figure it out.
It's risky nonetheless to make a three-year guarantee to someone who has never played 140 games in any season.
I like the arbitrary "140 games" rule the author is instituting here. Nevermind Keppinger's value lies in being able to play multiple positions and not embarrassing himself at the plate, who wants to give him a whole $4 million per year (on average) to do these things?
Cincinnati Reds: Moving Aroldis Chapman to Starting Rotation
A dominant starter is worth much more than a dominant closer, so you can't blame the Cincinnati Reds for trying Aroldis Chapman in a larger role.
This is the second straight "mistake" an MLB team has made which the author admits actually made sense. This is what happens when a list becomes overly-long, it starts to become factually inaccurate.
The Cuban Missile will need to refine a tertiary pitch to mix in with his fastball and slider. He also has a tendency to nibble during plate appearances ("wasting" pitches), which will limit him to a short outings in the rotation.
Nearly every single MLB starter "wastes" pitches. I can think of just a few starters who did not waste pitches at some point or another. So the idea Chapman will waste pitches will run up his pitch count is true, but this isn't an indication he will fail as a starter. Plus, Chapman was a starter in Cuba, so it isn't like he doesn't know how to do it.
Making this decision led the Reds to overpay for Jonathan Broxton.
Three years $21 million? For a quality closer/set up isn't a bad deal. Broxton's 2010 and 2011 seasons seem like aberrations to me. It seems this author struggles with the idea a team has to pay to attract quality free agent talent.
Colorado Rockies: Re-Signing Jeff Francis
Monday, June 11, 2012
2 comments Terence Moore Loves a Potentially Non-Existent Past
Terence Moore used to write for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. That's where I first caught wind of him. He's been featured on this blog a few times. I remember him mostly as the guy who suggested the Atlanta Braves re-sign/sign the following players during the 2009 offseason.
Rafael Furcal
John Smoltz
Ken Griffey Jr.
Mike Hampton
Andruw Jones
A.J. Burnett
Jake Peavy
Remember, I wasn't talking about the 2005 offseason, but the 2009 offseason. He wanted the Braves to go after these players, even though in 2009 none of these players were very good options in terms of salary and age. Terence Moore seems to enjoy the past. Terence Moore also loves himself some Dusty Baker. He has already written one article on Baker in the last couple of months, I covered another article here that he wrote in 2010 about Baker and I am sure another one will be due soon. Moore recently wrote an entire column about how trying to buy a World Series never works, followed by a column about how the Reds are making smart moves by spending big money on their own players. I guess spending big money on your own players doesn't count as buying a World Series.
Today, Terence Moore wonders why baseball players have become such huge wimps. Current baseball players are huge wimps because they don't have long streaks of consecutive games played. Moore cherry picks some of the longest consecutive games streaks in MLB history and then uses these streaks as a basis for comparison to show today's players take too many games off.
What in the "iron man" names of Cal Ripken Jr., Lou Gehrig and Everett Scott is going on with baseball these days?
I know! Why isn't every modern player anywhere close to playing in 1000 games in a row? Sure, older players couldn't come close to these three players' consecutive games streaks and that's why they have the three longest consecutive games streaks over the last 100 years, but let's ignore any evidence Terence Moore may have no point. It seems baseball players have always had trouble playing in 162 games in a season over four or more seasons. It's not easy to play every game in a season over multiple seasons due to the tight scheduling of games and the need for players to take a day off. I didn't know this until I looked it up, but guess in your head what the 10th longest games-played streak in baseball history is. I guessed 1200 games. This seems reasonable considering this record has been tracked for 100 years now and I thought over 100 years at least 10 players had played 8 seasons without missing a game. I would be wrong.
Here is the link for the answer.
That's right. 822 games is the 10th longest games-played streak in baseball history. Granted that's over 5 seasons worth of not missing a game (which is still impressive), but I personally would have thought the number would have been larger than that. It's pretty clear the consecutive game records set by Gehrig, Ripken, Scott, Garvey, and the other players in the top 10 are difficult to achieve. Terence Moore wants to make it seem like 20-30 players in baseball history have played 1000 games consecutively and this isn't true. Terence Moore just doesn't have a good perspective on the situation and how even playing two seasons of games isn't easy. Only 15 players in the history of baseball have consecutive games streaks of 700 games (equivalent to over four seasons) or more. After all, MLB teams usually play at least 27 games in a month and unless a player is considered elite he probably isn't going to be penciled into the lineup on a daily basis instead of being given a chance to rest. 162 games in a span of 6 months (or about 183 days). That's a lot of games in a short time and some rest is required.
Streaks for consecutive games played once were measured in years.
Mickey Mantle never played a full 154 game season.
Ted Williams played over 150 games in a season twice in his career.
Joe Morgan played over 150 games only four times in his career.
Joe DiMaggio played in over 150 games only three times in his career.
Babe Ruth played in 154 games in a season just once and played in over 150 games in six seasons.
Willie Mays played in over 150 games thirteen times in his career.
Albert Pujols has played in over 150 games eight times in his career.
Derek Jeter has played in over 150 games twelve times in his career.
Jeff Bagwell played in over 150 games ten times in his career.
David Ortiz (okay, he may not be a Hall of Famer) has played in over 150 games four times in his career.
I didn't cherry pick these names, instead I just chose the first names that came to my mind. My point is players have always taken a day off to recover from injuries or just rest. Terence Moore believes he has a point because he is writing this article based on anecdotal evidence and comparing modern day players' games played streaks to some of the longest games played streaks in baseball history. This is a very poor way to make his point.
Blame the usual suspects.
You mean the history of how baseball has been played? The usual suspect for this modern phenomenon is that it isn't a modern phenomenon.
You have teams such as the New York Mets wishing to protect guys for the long run while playing a slew of games in a row.
Which is something that has happened throughout the history of baseball. Even players in the 50's, 60's and 70's took a day off.
You have big money zapping away the desire of some players to spend long stretches in the lineup (you know, no matter what).
Or is it the players who make big money are better protected by management since so much money is invested in them?
Whatever the reason, players are sitting or being sat more on a regular basis -- to the detriment of playing streaks.
It would be incredibly awesome if Terence Moore provided any proof what he is stating is indeed correct. Unfortunately, I don't think he has provided any proof other than assuming what he is claiming is indeed correct. It appears he is using his own opinion as proof. I don't believe players are sitting or being sat on a more significantly regular basis modern day when compared to teams from the past.
Look at the 1927 Yankees. Only Lou Gehrig played in every game.
Look at the 1975 and 1976 Cincinnati Reds teams. Only Pete Rose played in every single game both years. That team had quite a few elite players on it. Besides, baseball isn't about playing streaks or playing in as many games as possible. Baseball is about playing in as many games possible, while being as productive and effective as possible in those games. MLB players have always needed a day off due to injury or fatigue.
Prior to Wednesday night's game at Turner Field against the Florida Marlins, Michael Bourn had played not only in every game for the Atlanta Braves this season but in every inning. He is a high-energy guy, with an efficient bat, swift feet and solid glove.
Part of the reason for Bourn not missing any innings is the Braves really have no other viable centerfielder option. They have Jason Heyward and that's about it. So that factors in to Bourn playing everyday as well. He isn't an elite player, but he plays everyday because there is no solid replacement for him at the top of the lineup and in centerfield. He plays everyday out of necessity.
Not only that, the word "slump" hasn't been part of Bourn's vocabulary since the early part of the season. Bourn was benched by Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez.
As much as it pains me to defend Fredi Gonzalez, Bourn needed a day off. In fact, Bourn has never played more than 158 games in a season. So Bourn tends to get days off, contrary to Terence Moore's belief. Wasn't the point of this article that modern day players take too many days off? Now Terence Moore has found a modern day exception to his newly found rule.
"You have to rest [players] every once in a while, because you can't run these guys into the ground." said Gonzalez, shrugging in the Braves' dugout while explaining his reasoning,
Then Fredi Gonzalez proceeded to have the pitcher bat second because "he is a better at bunting" and refused to use his best relief pitchers in any game where the Braves were losing, even by one run.
That sounded like Colorado Rockies manager Jim Tracy, who decided it wasn't good this week that outfielder Michael Cuddyer hadn't left the lineup since way back in ... late April.
Guys get a day off. That's just how it is. Michael Cuddyer is not a bad baseball player, but why would the Rockies want to run him out there everyday just so they can say he played in every game? Why does Terence Moore think consecutive games streaks are more important than productive baseball players?
Then there is Mets manager Terry Collins, who huddles with his coaching staff to plot in advance which players will get which games off for a given series on the Mets' schedule -- especially during grueling stretches such as their current one of 20 days in a row with a game.
I think it makes sense to plot the games that players are taking off in advance. I know Terence Moore isn't ignorant enough to believe a streak of 20 games in a row doesn't merit a game or two of rest for certain players.
Which begs a question: If Hall of Famer Billy Williams were in his prime today, would he come close to doing what he did for the Chicago Cubs from Sept. 22, 1963, to Sept. 2, 1970?
Billy Williams was a Hall of Fame hitter. Of course the Cubs wanted him in the lineup everyday. Michael Cuddyer and Michael Bourn are not Billy Williams, so they get a day off from time-to-time. All things being equal, elite players will generally get fewer days off than players who not elite players. The Cubs needed Williams' bat in the lineup as much as possible and he was able to stay injury-free enough to play at a high level. He is the exception to the rule, not the rule.
In fact, I would argue a consecutive games played streak can be counterproductive because a player may want to keep the streak alive by playing in a game and can negatively affect his team if he isn't able to be an effective player.
"I'm not sure," Williams said, pausing over the phone from his home in the Chicago area, recalling how he went through that stretch playing in 1,117 consecutive games, which was the National League record. "Could I do that now? I'm really not sure."
Billy Williams set the National League record for games played. He is clearly the outlier, not the rule. I feel like Terence Moore is taking a MLB record and trying to set it as the standard for the modern day player. This is like asking, "Why can't more hitters hit 50 home runs in a season?" while suggesting modern players aren't as strong as players from a previous generation and then interviewing Hank Aaron as proof of how weak the modern player is. We are talking about the Billy Williams that set a record for games played in a row. His streak isn't the norm.
In case you're wondering, Detroit Tigers first baseman Prince Fielder entered Friday's action with the current longest streak for games played in the Major Leagues, at 219.
Two-hundred and nineteen? That's nothing -- well, if you join us in the old-school wing of baseball.
Absolutely not true. Now let's allow Terence Moore to submarine his own point.
Still, Kemp's 399 compared to Williams' 1,117? We won't even mention Scott's 1,307 consecutive games played, or Gehrig's 2,130, which stood as the gold standard for 56 years.
Gehrig's consecutive games played streak stood for 56 years. For 56 years no baseball player could play more than 2130 games in a row. It strikes me as funny that Terence Moore is talking about how modern baseball players don't play enough games in a row, yet many "old school" baseball players couldn't beat Gehrig's record for 56 years. It took a modern day player to break that record.
In fact, Everett Scott is currently third all-time on the consecutive games played list. He set the record in 1925. 1925. That is 87 years ago when he set this record. How come all these "iron men" during the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's couldn't break his record and come in second on the consecutive games played list behind Gehrig? Even if we pretend modern baseball players aren't very tough and take too many games off, why did it take over 60 years for someone to even get to #2 on the consecutive games played list? Perhaps this is because Everett Scott's 1307 consecutive games isn't representative how many games in a row players are able to play. Everett's consecutive games streak is a remarkable feat and not something players can easily duplicate.
Those days of longevity have gone the way of teams traveling from city to city via the rails instead of the sky.
It's kind of hard to play Sunday afternoon in Washington, DC and be in Los Angeles for a 7:00pm PST game if you take a train to get there.
"Unlike today, we didn't have to play 20-something days in a row like some of these teams.
"The traveling, the scheduling, the length of the games, all of the media that you have to deal with nowadays -- it's different, and it starts pushing you [to need more rest] as a player."
This is Billy Williams speaking and he is exactly right. Williams sometimes didn't need Monday off because it was a travel day in the schedule and he had it off already.
It's just that you had a bunch of things unique to Williams' era that players overcame to stay in the lineup more often than not.
Not true. This is very broad anecdotal evidence that doesn't really serve to prove anything. Terence Moore is generalizing about thousands of players and the injuries they suffered, while also generalizing whether they chose to/not to fight through these injuries. There's no way to make such a broad statement and even come close to it being accurate.
Those slew of doubleheaders;
Oh yeah, "those" slew of doubleheaders.
the epidemic of artificial-surface stadiums during the 1970s; spikes-high opponents sliding into bases; folks who threw real knockdown pitches and dared you to say something about it.
Oh, "folks who threw REAL knockdown pitches," as opposed to these 50 mile an hour pitches that pass for knockdown pitches these days.
"I can think of a couple of times when I had colds and stuff, and I didn't feel like playing, and I dragged myself to the ballpark," Williams said.
I'm pretty sure there are modern players who play through a cold.
"Once, I hit a ball off the top of my foot. I stayed in the game, though, and I hit a home run a couple of innings after that, but I could hardly run the bases.
"One time, I didn't feel very good before a game. In my first at-bat I hit the baseball so hard it flew out of the stadium. I ran out between innings, retrieved the baseball, saved a man from having a heart attack, and then came back to play defense and had three put-outs in one inning. This one anecdote proves all current baseball players are flower-in-their-hair-wearing pussies."
"You also had just eight teams in the American League and eight teams in the National League at one point, and you had a bunch of good players down in Triple-A waiting to take your job. Therefore, whenever they threatened to take you out of the lineup back then, everybody would start to call you Wally Pipp. It made you want to stay in the lineup even more, because you didn't want to have that name."
And now, with no minor league system in baseball there is no one who can take a player's job. Baseball teams have no competition for a starting position anymore.
In addition to Gehrig's streak -- and those of Ripken, Scott and Williams, there was Steve Garvey eventually setting the NL record with 1,207 consecutive games played through July 1983.
So far as proof for his reasoning that current baseball players are lazy and won't play through injuries, Terence Moore has cited four of the top six players on MLB's all-time consecutive games list. Of course, these are consecutive games streaks no other MLB players over the past 100 years have been able to surpass, but let's definitely use them as the basis to compare modern players to. That sounds fair.
Pete Rose operated as fearlessly as anybody in baseball history. He sprinted to first base after walks, slid headfirst into bases and dove for fly balls and ground balls. Even so, he played in 745 straight games through August 1983 while in his 40s.
Rose is 12th on the all-time consecutive games played list.
Ernie Banks, Stan Musial, Nellie Fox -- they all joined Rose, Williams and the others with playing streaks of 700 games or more. In fact, out of the top 15 such streaks in baseball history, eight of those players are in Cooperstown.
So if Terence Moore actually put thought into this column, and that's a big "if," he would understand the players who play the most games in a row are usually the elite players whose presence in the lineup can not be missed by their team. So comparing Michael Cuddyer and Michael Bourn to these players isn't a fair comparison because Cuddyer and Bourn aren't Hall of Fame-type players who have an elite skill set which is required in the lineup everyday without rest. Bourn plays a position where the Braves have no backup, so that's why he has played as much as he has. He would probably take more days off if the Braves had a competent backup. Does that make him not an "iron man?" Maybe, but it also would make him just like thousands of other players over the history of baseball.
Said Williams, speaking for himself and most of his peers, "I stayed in the lineup, not because I had to, I wanted to."
Rafael Furcal
John Smoltz
Ken Griffey Jr.
Mike Hampton
Andruw Jones
A.J. Burnett
Jake Peavy
Remember, I wasn't talking about the 2005 offseason, but the 2009 offseason. He wanted the Braves to go after these players, even though in 2009 none of these players were very good options in terms of salary and age. Terence Moore seems to enjoy the past. Terence Moore also loves himself some Dusty Baker. He has already written one article on Baker in the last couple of months, I covered another article here that he wrote in 2010 about Baker and I am sure another one will be due soon. Moore recently wrote an entire column about how trying to buy a World Series never works, followed by a column about how the Reds are making smart moves by spending big money on their own players. I guess spending big money on your own players doesn't count as buying a World Series.
Today, Terence Moore wonders why baseball players have become such huge wimps. Current baseball players are huge wimps because they don't have long streaks of consecutive games played. Moore cherry picks some of the longest consecutive games streaks in MLB history and then uses these streaks as a basis for comparison to show today's players take too many games off.
What in the "iron man" names of Cal Ripken Jr., Lou Gehrig and Everett Scott is going on with baseball these days?
I know! Why isn't every modern player anywhere close to playing in 1000 games in a row? Sure, older players couldn't come close to these three players' consecutive games streaks and that's why they have the three longest consecutive games streaks over the last 100 years, but let's ignore any evidence Terence Moore may have no point. It seems baseball players have always had trouble playing in 162 games in a season over four or more seasons. It's not easy to play every game in a season over multiple seasons due to the tight scheduling of games and the need for players to take a day off. I didn't know this until I looked it up, but guess in your head what the 10th longest games-played streak in baseball history is. I guessed 1200 games. This seems reasonable considering this record has been tracked for 100 years now and I thought over 100 years at least 10 players had played 8 seasons without missing a game. I would be wrong.
Here is the link for the answer.
That's right. 822 games is the 10th longest games-played streak in baseball history. Granted that's over 5 seasons worth of not missing a game (which is still impressive), but I personally would have thought the number would have been larger than that. It's pretty clear the consecutive game records set by Gehrig, Ripken, Scott, Garvey, and the other players in the top 10 are difficult to achieve. Terence Moore wants to make it seem like 20-30 players in baseball history have played 1000 games consecutively and this isn't true. Terence Moore just doesn't have a good perspective on the situation and how even playing two seasons of games isn't easy. Only 15 players in the history of baseball have consecutive games streaks of 700 games (equivalent to over four seasons) or more. After all, MLB teams usually play at least 27 games in a month and unless a player is considered elite he probably isn't going to be penciled into the lineup on a daily basis instead of being given a chance to rest. 162 games in a span of 6 months (or about 183 days). That's a lot of games in a short time and some rest is required.
Streaks for consecutive games played once were measured in years.
Now, we're talking about months and weeks.
If that.
Certain consecutive games played streaks were measured in years, but most of the consecutive games played streaks throughout the age of baseball have been measured in months and weeks. Modern players aren't weak, Terence Moore just doesn't care to do research, so he just assumes his...um...assumption is correct when it isn't. MLB played 154 games in a season from 1904-1961 and has played 162 games in a season every year since 1962. This is just a note as I compare some Hall of Fame players to modern players who will eventually be in the Hall of Fame as it relates to the number of games they played in a season. Modern players have more games scheduled in less time. Even knowing this, some great Hall of Fame players weren't quite the "iron men" that Terence Moore probably thinks they were.Mickey Mantle never played a full 154 game season.
Ted Williams played over 150 games in a season twice in his career.
Joe Morgan played over 150 games only four times in his career.
Joe DiMaggio played in over 150 games only three times in his career.
Babe Ruth played in 154 games in a season just once and played in over 150 games in six seasons.
Willie Mays played in over 150 games thirteen times in his career.
Albert Pujols has played in over 150 games eight times in his career.
Derek Jeter has played in over 150 games twelve times in his career.
Jeff Bagwell played in over 150 games ten times in his career.
David Ortiz (okay, he may not be a Hall of Famer) has played in over 150 games four times in his career.
I didn't cherry pick these names, instead I just chose the first names that came to my mind. My point is players have always taken a day off to recover from injuries or just rest. Terence Moore believes he has a point because he is writing this article based on anecdotal evidence and comparing modern day players' games played streaks to some of the longest games played streaks in baseball history. This is a very poor way to make his point.
Blame the usual suspects.
You mean the history of how baseball has been played? The usual suspect for this modern phenomenon is that it isn't a modern phenomenon.
You have teams such as the New York Mets wishing to protect guys for the long run while playing a slew of games in a row.
Which is something that has happened throughout the history of baseball. Even players in the 50's, 60's and 70's took a day off.
You have big money zapping away the desire of some players to spend long stretches in the lineup (you know, no matter what).
Or is it the players who make big money are better protected by management since so much money is invested in them?
Whatever the reason, players are sitting or being sat more on a regular basis -- to the detriment of playing streaks.
It would be incredibly awesome if Terence Moore provided any proof what he is stating is indeed correct. Unfortunately, I don't think he has provided any proof other than assuming what he is claiming is indeed correct. It appears he is using his own opinion as proof. I don't believe players are sitting or being sat on a more significantly regular basis modern day when compared to teams from the past.
Look at the 1927 Yankees. Only Lou Gehrig played in every game.
Look at the 1975 and 1976 Cincinnati Reds teams. Only Pete Rose played in every single game both years. That team had quite a few elite players on it. Besides, baseball isn't about playing streaks or playing in as many games as possible. Baseball is about playing in as many games possible, while being as productive and effective as possible in those games. MLB players have always needed a day off due to injury or fatigue.
Prior to Wednesday night's game at Turner Field against the Florida Marlins, Michael Bourn had played not only in every game for the Atlanta Braves this season but in every inning. He is a high-energy guy, with an efficient bat, swift feet and solid glove.
Part of the reason for Bourn not missing any innings is the Braves really have no other viable centerfielder option. They have Jason Heyward and that's about it. So that factors in to Bourn playing everyday as well. He isn't an elite player, but he plays everyday because there is no solid replacement for him at the top of the lineup and in centerfield. He plays everyday out of necessity.
Not only that, the word "slump" hasn't been part of Bourn's vocabulary since the early part of the season. Bourn was benched by Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez.
As much as it pains me to defend Fredi Gonzalez, Bourn needed a day off. In fact, Bourn has never played more than 158 games in a season. So Bourn tends to get days off, contrary to Terence Moore's belief. Wasn't the point of this article that modern day players take too many days off? Now Terence Moore has found a modern day exception to his newly found rule.
"You have to rest [players] every once in a while, because you can't run these guys into the ground." said Gonzalez, shrugging in the Braves' dugout while explaining his reasoning,
Then Fredi Gonzalez proceeded to have the pitcher bat second because "he is a better at bunting" and refused to use his best relief pitchers in any game where the Braves were losing, even by one run.
That sounded like Colorado Rockies manager Jim Tracy, who decided it wasn't good this week that outfielder Michael Cuddyer hadn't left the lineup since way back in ... late April.
Guys get a day off. That's just how it is. Michael Cuddyer is not a bad baseball player, but why would the Rockies want to run him out there everyday just so they can say he played in every game? Why does Terence Moore think consecutive games streaks are more important than productive baseball players?
Then there is Mets manager Terry Collins, who huddles with his coaching staff to plot in advance which players will get which games off for a given series on the Mets' schedule -- especially during grueling stretches such as their current one of 20 days in a row with a game.
I think it makes sense to plot the games that players are taking off in advance. I know Terence Moore isn't ignorant enough to believe a streak of 20 games in a row doesn't merit a game or two of rest for certain players.
Which begs a question: If Hall of Famer Billy Williams were in his prime today, would he come close to doing what he did for the Chicago Cubs from Sept. 22, 1963, to Sept. 2, 1970?
Billy Williams was a Hall of Fame hitter. Of course the Cubs wanted him in the lineup everyday. Michael Cuddyer and Michael Bourn are not Billy Williams, so they get a day off from time-to-time. All things being equal, elite players will generally get fewer days off than players who not elite players. The Cubs needed Williams' bat in the lineup as much as possible and he was able to stay injury-free enough to play at a high level. He is the exception to the rule, not the rule.
In fact, I would argue a consecutive games played streak can be counterproductive because a player may want to keep the streak alive by playing in a game and can negatively affect his team if he isn't able to be an effective player.
"I'm not sure," Williams said, pausing over the phone from his home in the Chicago area, recalling how he went through that stretch playing in 1,117 consecutive games, which was the National League record. "Could I do that now? I'm really not sure."
Billy Williams set the National League record for games played. He is clearly the outlier, not the rule. I feel like Terence Moore is taking a MLB record and trying to set it as the standard for the modern day player. This is like asking, "Why can't more hitters hit 50 home runs in a season?" while suggesting modern players aren't as strong as players from a previous generation and then interviewing Hank Aaron as proof of how weak the modern player is. We are talking about the Billy Williams that set a record for games played in a row. His streak isn't the norm.
In case you're wondering, Detroit Tigers first baseman Prince Fielder entered Friday's action with the current longest streak for games played in the Major Leagues, at 219.
Two-hundred and nineteen? That's nothing -- well, if you join us in the old-school wing of baseball.
Absolutely not true. Now let's allow Terence Moore to submarine his own point.
Still, Kemp's 399 compared to Williams' 1,117? We won't even mention Scott's 1,307 consecutive games played, or Gehrig's 2,130, which stood as the gold standard for 56 years.
Gehrig's consecutive games played streak stood for 56 years. For 56 years no baseball player could play more than 2130 games in a row. It strikes me as funny that Terence Moore is talking about how modern baseball players don't play enough games in a row, yet many "old school" baseball players couldn't beat Gehrig's record for 56 years. It took a modern day player to break that record.
In fact, Everett Scott is currently third all-time on the consecutive games played list. He set the record in 1925. 1925. That is 87 years ago when he set this record. How come all these "iron men" during the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's couldn't break his record and come in second on the consecutive games played list behind Gehrig? Even if we pretend modern baseball players aren't very tough and take too many games off, why did it take over 60 years for someone to even get to #2 on the consecutive games played list? Perhaps this is because Everett Scott's 1307 consecutive games isn't representative how many games in a row players are able to play. Everett's consecutive games streak is a remarkable feat and not something players can easily duplicate.
Those days of longevity have gone the way of teams traveling from city to city via the rails instead of the sky.
It's kind of hard to play Sunday afternoon in Washington, DC and be in Los Angeles for a 7:00pm PST game if you take a train to get there.
"Unlike today, we didn't have to play 20-something days in a row like some of these teams.
"The traveling, the scheduling, the length of the games, all of the media that you have to deal with nowadays -- it's different, and it starts pushing you [to need more rest] as a player."
This is Billy Williams speaking and he is exactly right. Williams sometimes didn't need Monday off because it was a travel day in the schedule and he had it off already.
It's just that you had a bunch of things unique to Williams' era that players overcame to stay in the lineup more often than not.
Not true. This is very broad anecdotal evidence that doesn't really serve to prove anything. Terence Moore is generalizing about thousands of players and the injuries they suffered, while also generalizing whether they chose to/not to fight through these injuries. There's no way to make such a broad statement and even come close to it being accurate.
Those slew of doubleheaders;
Oh yeah, "those" slew of doubleheaders.
the epidemic of artificial-surface stadiums during the 1970s; spikes-high opponents sliding into bases; folks who threw real knockdown pitches and dared you to say something about it.
Oh, "folks who threw REAL knockdown pitches," as opposed to these 50 mile an hour pitches that pass for knockdown pitches these days.
"I can think of a couple of times when I had colds and stuff, and I didn't feel like playing, and I dragged myself to the ballpark," Williams said.
I'm pretty sure there are modern players who play through a cold.
"Once, I hit a ball off the top of my foot. I stayed in the game, though, and I hit a home run a couple of innings after that, but I could hardly run the bases.
"One time, I didn't feel very good before a game. In my first at-bat I hit the baseball so hard it flew out of the stadium. I ran out between innings, retrieved the baseball, saved a man from having a heart attack, and then came back to play defense and had three put-outs in one inning. This one anecdote proves all current baseball players are flower-in-their-hair-wearing pussies."
"You also had just eight teams in the American League and eight teams in the National League at one point, and you had a bunch of good players down in Triple-A waiting to take your job. Therefore, whenever they threatened to take you out of the lineup back then, everybody would start to call you Wally Pipp. It made you want to stay in the lineup even more, because you didn't want to have that name."
And now, with no minor league system in baseball there is no one who can take a player's job. Baseball teams have no competition for a starting position anymore.
In addition to Gehrig's streak -- and those of Ripken, Scott and Williams, there was Steve Garvey eventually setting the NL record with 1,207 consecutive games played through July 1983.
So far as proof for his reasoning that current baseball players are lazy and won't play through injuries, Terence Moore has cited four of the top six players on MLB's all-time consecutive games list. Of course, these are consecutive games streaks no other MLB players over the past 100 years have been able to surpass, but let's definitely use them as the basis to compare modern players to. That sounds fair.
Pete Rose operated as fearlessly as anybody in baseball history. He sprinted to first base after walks, slid headfirst into bases and dove for fly balls and ground balls. Even so, he played in 745 straight games through August 1983 while in his 40s.
Rose is 12th on the all-time consecutive games played list.
Ernie Banks, Stan Musial, Nellie Fox -- they all joined Rose, Williams and the others with playing streaks of 700 games or more. In fact, out of the top 15 such streaks in baseball history, eight of those players are in Cooperstown.
So if Terence Moore actually put thought into this column, and that's a big "if," he would understand the players who play the most games in a row are usually the elite players whose presence in the lineup can not be missed by their team. So comparing Michael Cuddyer and Michael Bourn to these players isn't a fair comparison because Cuddyer and Bourn aren't Hall of Fame-type players who have an elite skill set which is required in the lineup everyday without rest. Bourn plays a position where the Braves have no backup, so that's why he has played as much as he has. He would probably take more days off if the Braves had a competent backup. Does that make him not an "iron man?" Maybe, but it also would make him just like thousands of other players over the history of baseball.
Said Williams, speaking for himself and most of his peers, "I stayed in the lineup, not because I had to, I wanted to."
Oh, the good old days.
Those good old days that didn't exist. Elite players tend to play more games than non-elite players. Teams play more games in a row under the 162 game schedule than they did under the 154 game schedule, so managers want to give some of these players a day off. Terence Moore misses a group of "iron men" that probably didn't exist to the extent he believes they did.Wednesday, April 13, 2011
7 comments 2007 NBA Draft Do-Over
Since second guessing is so fun, I decided to take a look back at the 2007 NBA draft and see how badly teams messed up their future. And since every NBA team should clearly hire me as their GM, I figured I'd just redo the entire lottery so they can relive the pain and misery of their failure. And yes, I know all NBA GMs read Bottom of the Barrel.
As a ground rule, I'm solely looking at this in terms of how guys have turned out so far.I have also ignored injuries as a predicting factor. Meaning that the team who drafted Greg Oden did not know they were acquiring a set of microfracture surgeries, but a guy who has averaged 10 points and 8 boards in 22 minutes per game over 2 full seasons.
Anyway, here's what should have happened on that fateful day in June 2007.
1. Portland Trail Blazers – Kevin Durant, SF, Texas
Brandon Roy may be the shooting guard of the future after his ROY season, but Portland does not pass up a future NBA scoring leader. A foundation of Durant, Roy and Aldridge has championship potential written all over it.
2. Seattle Supersonics – Al Horford, PF, Florida
Unlike 2007, Portland does not pick incorrectly and Kevin Durant does not fall neatly into Seattle’s lap. Instead, they select the second best player out of this draft who has turned into a perennial All-Star and dominant inside presence. For a team clearly rebuilding, Horford is a nice starting block.
3. Atlanta Hawks – Joakim Noah, PF Florida
At this point in his career, Josh Smith had not yet unleashed his inner beast, but instead was continuing his love affair with the three-pointer. Marvin Williams is only two years removed from being drafted 2nd overall and still has the potential to develop into a big time scorer. Joe Johnson, regardless of whether he can live up to his contract, is being paid to be the number one scorer. The most noticeable void, then, is the frontcourt strength. Noah fills the rebounder/shot-blocker/energy role with the exuberance and tenacity that Atlanta lacks.
4. Memphis Grizzlies – Rodney Stuckey, PG, Eastern Washington
With Rudy Gay beginning to fulfill his future role as the primary perimeter scorer and Pau Gasol already a well-established finesse post player, Memphis needs someone to get them the ball. Memphis’ knowledge of his future informs them that they are drafting a quality NBA point guard (13.8 ppg, 6.8 apg) with potential.
5. Boston Celtics – Greg Oden, C, Ohio State
This situation is especially complicated considering the circumstances that surrounded the pick. Remember that Garnett was not acquired until July 31st, 2007, well after the NBA draft (the draft day deal fell apart). Also remember that this pick was traded to Seattle in exchange for Ray Allen. Assuming Boston does not make this trade and understands that the probability of a Garnett trade is unlikely (which it was once a deal could not be completed the first time), they simply select a defensive anchor to take Garnett’s place (Remember that we’re ignoring injuries per the draft do-over rules.)
6. Milwaukee Bucks – Wilson Chandler, SF, DePaul
Andrew Bogut and Charlie Villanueva leave Milwaukee little reason to go big, and Michael Redd and Mo Williams provide plenty of backcourt chucking. A reliable small forward scorer who can get to the basket is (well, one of) Milwaukee’s missing link. Williams, Redd and Villanueva can get back to their favorite roles, open three-point shooting, with Chandler’s driving ability opening things up on the perimeter.
7. Minnesota Timberwolves – Jeff Green, SF, Georgetown
We may not know his final destination, but Garnett is on the way out. The gaping hole he leaves at power forward may be the most glaring need, but the utter lack of talent in Minnesota is even more blatant. For this reason, Minnesota drafts the best player available.
8. Charlotte Bobcats – Marc Gasol, C, Spain
Gerald Wallace, Emeka Okafor, Raymond Felton and Adam Morrison are a solid foundation for the future and fill the 1,2,3 and 4 slots. Gasol is the final piece to the starting five puzzle.
9. Chicago Bulls – Glen Davis, PF, LSU
Kirk Hinrich, Luol Deng and Ben Gordon have the backcourt scoring taken care of. The only problem is someone to clean up the misses. That’s where Big Baby comes in. Although this pick was Joakim Noah in 2007, Chicago does not have that luxury now. Instead, they’ll settle for the next best thing.
10. Sacramento Kings – Mike Conley, PG, Ohio State
Although power forward is a big need, the value simply isn’t there. If the Kings are hell-bent on need, Carl Landry is the pick. If not, they draft the future at point guard in Mike Conley. Bibby is getting up there in age and the
Kings are looking to rebuild for the long-term.
11. Atlanta Hawks – Aaron Brooks, PG, Oregon
Remember when the Hawks had 17 guys who played shooting guard/small forward? That was circa 2006-2007. Although Brooks may be trigger-happy, he’s a significant upgrade from the likes of Speedy Claxton and Tyronn Lue.
12. Philadelphia 76ers – Rudy Fernandez, SG, Spain
With Andre Iguodala and his get-to-the-basket mentality beginning to establish himself as the centerpiece of the future, Philadelphia needs to surround him with more shooters than just Kyle Korver.
13. New Orleans Hornets – Nick Young, SG, USC
Chris Paul and David West have already established their pick and roll chemistry, but Paul has few shooters with whom he can complete the drive and dish. More importantly, Young adds a second scoring threat to relieve some of the pressure on Paul.
14. Los Angeles Clippers – Arron Afflalo, SG, UCLA
The frontcourt future is secure with Chris Kaman and Elton Brand leading the charge. The backcourt, however, is in disarray. Shaun Livingston’s devastating knee injury has put his career in jeopardy, Sam Cassel is on the verge of retirement and Corey Maggette is hardly the light at the end of the tunnel. Afflalo’s versatility and hard-working attitude is the right step in turning around the Clippers’ losing culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)