I don't normally cover Peter King's mailbag. If I do, it is usually to focus on one of Peter's readers who asks him a stupid question or just seems overall clueless. Peter usually doesn't give an exciting enough response to a question in order to merit a response from me. This week Peter responds to two questions in his mailbag and I think these responses are worth covering. Also, I simply can't ignore Joe Flacco's latest burst of confidence in his own abilities and have to comment on his comments. I'll cover what Flacco's burst of confidence first.
1. I am sure many of you heard Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. The way this was quoted by many media outlets takes it out of context a little bit, but I still think Flacco is delusional. Here is Flacco's full quote:
“Without a doubt. What do you expect me to say? … I assume everybody thinks they’re a top-five quarterback. I mean, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’m top five, I think I’m the best. I don’t think I’d be very successful at my job if I didn’t feel that way. I mean, c’mon? That’s not really too tough of a question. But that doesn’t mean that things are gonna work out that way. It just means that that’s the way it is, that’s the way I feel it is, and that’s the way I feel it should be.”
So while I am getting ready to rip him a bit, I do see where Flacco is coming from in a way. He is a starting quarterback in the NFL. He has to have faith in his abilities, right? That's almost a part of the job description. So Flacco basically says he considers himself to be the best quarterback in the NFL, but he also realizes he is deluding himself. It makes sense, but then it also doesn't. Flacco wants a new contract and I think that's pretty much what any quote that comes out of Flacco's mouth is intended to achieve.
While it is true that Joe Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL, he mostly says this to pump his own self up. That would lead me to ask why he has to pump himself up about his abilities? Do you think the real best quarterback in the NFL has to convince himself or tell a reporter he is the best quarterback in the NFL? Probably not. Brees, Rodgers, Brady, etc simply allow their performance on the field speak for itself without having to rate their abilities amongst their peers. The question gets asked of Flacco because he clearly isn't the best quarterback in the NFL and to hear him say so provides a good quote.
There is a disparity in the Ravens accomplishments as a team and the perceived ability of Flacco to lead his team to even greater accomplishments. So in my opinion, by stating he believes he is the best quarterback in the NFL, Flacco shows us he doesn't really believe this to be true. The quotes read almost like he is trying to convince himself this is true. Eli Manning stated he was an elite quarterback and then showed us this was true. He didn't say he was "the best" quarterback though. He didn't rate himself. It's almost like Flacco has to convince himself his statement is true or he has to believe it to be true to do his job well. Flacco is saying he is a top-five quarterback because he knows his performance on the field doesn't reflect this. It is almost as if he keeps reassuring himself he is one of the best, he will stay confident.
So the question of who is the NFL's best quarterback comes to mind. I would say Aaron Rodgers, but that can be argued. I do know Flacco isn't even a Top 10 quarterback in my mind. Here is a list of quarterbacks I would rather have than Joe Flacco (and no, these are not in order of how I rank these quarterbacks):
Philip Rivers
Eli Manning
Peyton Manning
Tom Brady
Drew Brees
Ben Roethlisberger
Aaron Rodgers
Matt Schaub
Matt Ryan
Cam Newton
Jay Cutler
Tony Romo
Matthew Stafford
So that's my list. I'm glad Flacco thinks he is the best quarterback in the NFL. I'm guessing he is the only who believes this...even though Flacco probably doesn't really believe it in reality.
2. Here is Peter's mailbag for this week. In the mailbag is this question:
"Isn't Ryan Tannehill just this year's Blaine Gabbert? Do you really think he's worth a first-round pick, not to mention a top five pick? Also, I don't understand why St. Louis isn't banging down Cleveland's door to make a deal for the fourth pick to get Justin Blackmon. Are the Rams just not that impressed with him or are they banking that he'll fall to them?''
-- From Ash, Cincinnati
PK: The stats say that about half of the first-round picks over the past 20 years are washouts, or just OK. So it's possible that Tannehill is that.
I hope Peter realizes he can answer any question about any NFL Draft prospect beginning with this sentence. Basically, saying half of 1st round draft picks are just OK or washouts isn't really an answer.
Re: Blackmon, be careful about him.
He bites?
I like him too, but he's not nearly the size of the franchise big receivers playing now -- Andre Johnson, Calvin Johnson, Larry Fitzgerald.
From what I have seen and heard, Blackmon isn't the consensus best receiver in this draft. That could very well be Kendall Wright from Baylor. So my personal feelings about Blackmon aside, I absolutely think Peter is wrong about his "size of the franchise big receivers playing now." A franchise receiver doesn't have to be big. So comparing Blackmon to franchise big receivers is pointless because there are franchise "smaller" receivers. Yes, Blackmon is "only" 6'1" (maybe slightly smaller) and 215 pounds, but there are franchise receivers who aren't "big" receivers. So based solely on Blackmon's height and size, there is nothing to be careful about. I've done this before, but since Peter absolutely refuses to do any type of research and prefers just spouting off nonsense, I will do it again.
Looking at the Top 10 wide receivers in the NFL (in receiving yards) every year since 2006...these are how many of these receivers are listed as 6'1" or shorter were in the Top 10 in the NFL in receiving yards:
2006: 7 (Chad Johnson, Reggie Wayne, Donald Driver, Lee Evans, Anquan Boldin, Torry Holt, Steve Smith)
2007: 5 (Wayne, Johnson, Brandon Marshall, Roddy White, Torry Holt)
2008: 7 (Smith, White, Greg Jennings, Marshall, Antonio Bryant, Wes Welker, Wayne)
2009: 5 (Welker, Wayne, Santonio Holmes, Smith, Hines Ward)
2010: 6 (Brandon Lloyd, White, Wayne, Jennings, Mike Wallace, Santana Moss)
2011: 7 (Welker, Victor Cruz, Smith, White, Marshall, Wallace, Hakeem Nicks)
So you can see that Justin Blackmon can still be a franchise-type receiver at his present height. You can also see there are quite a few names on that list more than once, which means these are "franchise" type receivers. So while Peter can list the height of Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and other "big" receivers as a way to dismiss him or have concerns about Justin Blackmon, I think he is off-point.
How much tape on Justin Blackmon has Peter watched? I am guessing not very much and the criticisms of "He just doesn't look big enough" is how players like Mike Wallace and Steve Smith fall to the later rounds of the draft. Peter needs to be careful about taking the height of a college player and believing this height will necessarily negatively affect the player's ability to perform at a high level in the NFL. It's a good way to end up wrong about a player.
3. Peter received another piece of mail that asked the following question about everyone's favorite broadcaster:
"I watch the Jon Gruden specials with the quarterbacks also but mostly because I am a draft junkie. I wonder though if Gruden is so good working with young QB's, why didn't he develop any in the 10 years he was a head coach in the league?''
-- From Jeremiah Stadt, Jacksonville
How dare you question Jon Gruden's ability to develop a young quarterback simply because he has never developed a young quarterback! Peter is offended.
PK: Complex answer.
Not really. The answer is complex if you want it to be made complex. The answer is Jon Gruden always preferred veteran quarterbacks when he was a head coach and he isn't an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Gruden does the QB Camps with quarterbacks because ESPN thinks he is photogenic and fun to hear talk, not because he is supposed to be an expert on developing young quarterbacks. Still, Peter defends Jon Gruden as if Gruden just didn't have many quarterbacks to work with in the NFL. This isn't entirely false, but Peter takes an odd path to defend Gruden.
Gruden didn't have many premier, highly drafted quarterbacks to work with.
Reading comprehension skills are good to have, Peter. The questioner asked why Gruden didn't DEVELOP any young quarterbacks. He didn't ask why Gruden didn't draft one high in the NFL Draft. If you pay attention to the question, you can provide a better answer. Yes, Gruden works with (probable) highly drafted quarterbacks on his QB Camp show, but the question wasn't about whether Gruden had highly drafted quarterbacks to work with when he was an NFL head coach. The question was about why Gruden is considered an expert on your quarterbacks if he didn't develop a young quarterback.
Remember, he cultivated veterans like Rich Gannon and Brad Johnson instead of taking young quarterbacks high in drafts and then working to get them to be long-term starters.
No one will argue Gruden can cultivate veteran quarterbacks. Peter's answer still doesn't answer the question of how Gruden is qualified to work with young college quarterbacks since he doesn't seem to have a history of working with them while he was a head coach.
When he was the head coach of the Raiders they drafted only one quarterback and Gruden didn't really have a chance to work with this quarterback (Marques Tuiasosopo) since Gruden left to coach Tampa Bay in 2002.
When Gruden was in Tampa Bay, they drafted three quarterbacks. Those quarterbacks were Chris Simms, Josh Johnson and Bruce Gradkowski. So the question of why Gruden didn't develop a young quarterback while he was a head coach is still a viable question. It doesn't mean Gruden isn't a good quarterbacks coach, but the question is still viable.
Except for third-rounder Chris Simms, Gruden had mostly lesser guys to work with -- Shaun King, Bruce Gradkowski, Luke McCown and a few others I'm forgetting.
But again, the question was asking why Gruden didn't develop any young quarterbacks. That means help work with Shaun King (who was a 2nd round pick) and Chris Simms (who was a 3rd round pick) and turn them into viable NFL starting quarterbacks.
That's not to say he's a great quarterback coach,
No one is saying he isn't a great quarterback coach.
It's just to say he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders.
No, he didn't fail with a couple of first-rounders, but the question didn't seem to be about Gruden failing with first-round picks. The question was why he has a QB Camp on ESPN when he didn't develop any young quarterbacks. So mentioning he never had any highly talented quarterbacks to work with sort of doesn't answer the question.
I'm not saying Gruden isn't a good quarterback coach, but the real answer to this question isn't to defend Gruden's record or try to pretend a quarterback drafted in the 2nd or 3rd round can't be developed by Gruden. The real answer is, much like how ESPN hires many of their "experts," Gruden doesn't need to be an expert on young quarterbacks. He simply has to look good in front of a camera and put on a good performance when talking to the young quarterbacks. So it doesn't matter if Gruden has a history of developing quarterbacks or not. At ESPN a person doesn't have to be an expert or necessarily have a history in working with young quarterbacks, he/she simply has to look good on camera and sound like an expert.
Don't mistake ESPN's hiring of an individual for a chosen job as an indication that person is supposed to be an expert in that chosen job.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Thursday, April 5, 2012
6 comments Bill Simmons Is Now Whining about the Red Sox Before the MLB Season Even Begins
Bill Simmons experienced his most success (in terms of readers when liked him and didn't find him to be an egotistical maniac who only focuses on Boston sports, yet has has the gall to call himself "The Sports Guy") prior to the Red Sox winning a World Series title in 2004. Since that time he has tended to be an insufferable and has caused much consternation among fans of Boston sports due to this. Yet he still manages to have a dedicated fan base I call SimmonsClones. These are people who aspire to nothing in life other than to be just like Bill Simmons. They will be the ones writing negative comments about what I am about to post. Look for them and taste the tears they will cry about me ripping their hero. Their tears are delicious and taste like chocolate, by the way. And yes, there will be tears because Bill talks with Michael Schur, who actually knows what he is talking about when discussing the Red Sox, so Bill's comments tend to come off as silly.
Bill has no inclination to write anymore. This frustrates me. He wants to do podcasts and email famous people, then share those email exchanges he had with famous people with his readers to show us he knows famous people. DID YOU KNOW MICHAEL RAPAPORT LIVES ON BILL'S STREET? BILL KNOWS JIMMY KIMMEL AND LET HIM PROVE IT BY RELAYING SOMETHING HILARIOUSLY UNFUNNY THAT JIMMY KIMMEL SAID!
So Bill doesn't write very much anymore and when he does write about his favorite teams, he tends to whine and complain as if the his Boston teams have committed the terrible crime of not winning the championship every single year and because of this he is so tortured...then he inserts a pop culture reference in to describe how he feels. Now Bill is complaining about the Red Sox before the season even begins. Maybe not exactly complaining or whining, but he sees pending doom and is trying to talk himself into being excited for the Red Sox season. Rather than write a column, Bill wanted to remind his readers he does indeed know famous people and have an email exchange (though it is really weird if this was an email exchange because the exchanges are short, so I don't believe this was done over email) with Michael Schur. Michael Schur is Regis Philbin's son-in-law and co-creator of "Parks and Recreation," a really funny and great show. He also had a blog a long time ago...something to do with Firing Joe Morgan. Why he is participating in an email exchange with Bill Simmons, I'll never know. This makes me lose 5% respect for him, not that anyone cares.
When the Boston Globe's Chris Gasper wrote about a potential Bobby Valentine–Ben Cherington rift last weekend, it broke new ground even for Red Sox fans. Our new coach and GM quarreling before our first regular-season game?
A writer wrote one column about controversy among the Red Sox ranks. Let's overreact and whine about the Red Sox season that hasn't even occurred yet with each other over 10,000 words.
They couldn't have held off until Patriots' Day? Die-hard Sox fans Michael Schur and Bill Simmons decided to ease the pain by trading e-mails about the 2012 season.
The only way Bill Simmons can be classified as a "diehard" Red Sox fan is because when he sees the Red Sox hopes for making the playoffs are going to "die," he decides it will be "hard" to watch any of their games since he only writes about the Red Sox once a year, or possibly more, but only if they are successful and make the playoffs. Other than that, I find it hard to believe he is a diehard fan.
Simmons: Let's recap everything that happened since Game 161 in late September. The first body blow: We totally choked away Game 162 (and a playoff spot), completed the biggest September collapse in baseball history, turned Robert Andino into the modern-day Bucky Bleeping Dent, spawned bitter pieces from both you and me and made me ask myself things like, "Why does it feel like we won that last World Series 40 years ago?"
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Red Sox didn't make the playoffs and are the first major league team to have ever blown a large lead in September as long as you don't count the other major league teams that have done this but Bill doesn't count these teams because he believes everything does and should revolve around the Red Sox.
Simmons: You can't back out now! You promised! Second, stories/rumors/e-mails/message board posts quickly started circulating that there was more clubhouse dissension than anyone realized.
There is no more reliable source of information than emails/rumors/message boards!
And trust me, the team already felt very clubhouse dissensiony.
From the perspective of an outsider who lives in California and hasn't actually been in the Red Sox clubhouse this year...that Red Sox clubhouse feels very dissesiony.
Schur: Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't have any idea about the clubhouse stuff until it blew up after the season was over.
Oh really? Bill Simmons had knowledge of the clubhouse dissension, he just didn't mention it at the time because he forgot to mention it. But he knew of the dissension. He knew! He was going to bring it up prior to the dissension being made public, but he just didn't get a chance what with only writing one column a week and all. So AFTER the dissension is made public, Bill tells us he knew of the dissension beforehand.
Simmons: Really? I remember watching other teams happily standing on the top step of the dugout, then seeing our guys grimly sitting next to each other, and thinking, All right, something feels wrong here.
What was "wrong" is the team wasn't pitching well and they were blowing the Wild Card lead by losing games. Bill may remember players looking grim, but he also didn't remember to bring this up at the time so I question whether he is being truthful. Though in Bill's defense, we all know if the Red Sox aren't World Series-bound he tends to ignore them completely...when he isn't busy saying baseball is dying simply because the Red Sox weren't competitive at the time. So it is possible Bill didn't get a chance to mention the Red Sox looked grim because he was too busy ignoring their existence.
The players could have also looked grim because the Red Sox team was playing poorly. That's highly possible.
Schur: You're like The Mentalist.
No, he's full of shit.
Schur: It definitely didn't look like a happy bunch of guys last September, but I attributed that to going 7-20.
How illogical to believe a team's mood depends on their performance on the field! This would never happen in Bill's opinion because a team that likes each other will always be successful. A baseball season completely depends on how the players get along.
Also, Bill is claiming dissension during the same season starting pitchers were eating fried chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse. Apparently a few people on the team liked each other enough to eat chicken and drink beer together.
Simmons: You're right, that 2001 team was openly unbearable. It was like one of those families that fight in restaurants in public. The 2011 team was more like one of those creepy, Ordinary People families that seem fine on the surface … but they're not.
And yet, no one reported on this at the time. All the reporting on the Red Sox's dysfunction comes AFTER the collapse. Funny how hindsight works like that, right?
Schur: Yeah, "Fried Chicken and Beer" is never going away. Ever. We'll be talking about Fried Chicken and Beer in 30 years. Which is silly, because I would set the over/under on "MLB clubhouses regularly stocked with fried chicken and/or beer" at 14.5, and take the over. When it leaked that Kevin Millar had the team taking Jack Daniel's shots before playoff games in 2004, people were happy about it, because they won. It's fascinating, but completely understandable, that the same exact behavior reads completely differently when a team loses.
Exactly. I have said the same thing. Clearly, great minds think alike. On that note, isn't there someone smarter for Michael Schur to correspond with? This is like watching Nerlens Noel compete against high school players.
This is the first indication that Michael Schur will reject Bill's comments and try to focus Bill away from inane theories and ground him more in reality.
Simmons: The offseason hits kept coming when Chicago hired Theo Epstein (the guy who built our two title teams) AND Jed Hoyer (the guy we always assumed would come back to replace Theo when Theo finally left).
Schur: Theo leaving burns pretty badly, though the fact that his last few free-agent acquisitions were so stunningly terrible makes it a little easier to swallow.
Clearly, Theo Epstein is washed up. He'll never sign another free agent that plays well.
Simmons: Yeah, it's hard to believe that the same guy who was once so obsessed with finding value, building around under-29 elite players, throwing gobs of money into his farm system and avoiding the old Red Sox mistake of splurging on free agents hitting their 30s was suddenly so willing to overpay the Crawfords and Lackeys.
I am sure this had nothing to do with a fan base and ownership that wants to compete with the Yankees on the free agent market for the "best" players available. I'm sure Epstein's sudden willingness to throw gobs of money at players had nothing to do with ownership and some fans (like Peter King) who expect the Red Sox to spend money or else they will be called cheap. Then Epstein would be accused of not putting a great product on the field simply because the players at each position aren't household names.
Simmons: Part of me wonders if, when you have that money available, you eventually can't resist the urge to say "Fuck it" and start spending it over sticking to what got you there.
That's exactly what happened to the Red Sox in some ways, Bill. This has happened with many other large market teams as well over the years. Thanks for catching up with the rest of us.
Schur: I think that any organization that has a ton of cash runs the risk of recklessly spending the cash, especially when there are very high expectations for the organization's performance. Partly because they know that they can cover their mistakes with more cash, and partly because, well, it's exciting to spend money, and less exciting not to spend it. In this case, I believe the Sox front office looked at an aging Yankees franchise, with multiple bad long-term contracts at key positions, and thought: "If we can get Adrian Gonzalez, John Lackey, and Carl Crawford, we can step on their throats and drum them into third place in the division for five years." They went 1-for-3.
Really? No one better for Michael Schur to exchange emails with?
This is exactly correct, yet again. While Bill is touches on the issue like only a helicopter fan can (I call someone who is a helicopter fan a person that is a true fan of the team, but only is a fan in general of the team and doesn't try or care to understand the in-depth knowledge of the team. It isn't necessarily an insult as long as the person doesn't try to pretend to know more than he/she does), Michael Schur points out WHY the Red Sox spent like they did.
Simmons: Also, they panicked because of what was happening in Boston that winter — the Pats were on a roll, the Celts had the NBA's best record, the Bruins were coming on (and headed for a title), and meanwhile, we were coming off a fairly boring Red Sox season and the whole "Look how nice Fenway is now!" dynamic had been played out.
No, Bill. Not at all. The Red Sox spent that money for baseball-related reasons, not for some soap opera reason in order to keep up with the rest of the Boston sports teams.
Has anyone ever discussed your favorite sports team with someone who clearly isn't on your level or is more of a helicopter fan of a team? I know it sounds egotistical to ask that, but we've probably all been there. I have a friend who can't even discuss his own team without sounding like an idiot and getting the names of the players on the team wrong (he calls NCAA official Karl Hess "Craig Hess"). That's how this exchange between Simmons and Schur feels. Michael Schur says something intelligent and Bill Simmons does his shtick that got old a few seasons ago. It doesn't feel like a conversation between two diehard Red Sox fans.
Getting Gonzalez made sense, but Crawford always felt like one of those, "Look at us! We made a big move! HEY, LOOK AT US!!!!" Steinbrennerian luxury purchases that big-budget teams make for headlines.
Bill Simmons is a genius when it comes to hindsight. Give him a few years, he can tell you everything a team did wrong. Expect him to say what is right or wrong at the time? Eh, he can't do that.
Schur: Maybe, maybe not. The previous year Crawford hit .307/.356/.495, and he was 28/29. He seemed for all the world like a guy who was finally realizing his potential, and they had every expectation that he'd be an elite player for at least three to four years.
Lawyered.
This isn't even a fair discussion. Michael Schur has actual evidence to refute Bill's claims that are based completely on hindsight.
Simmons: I'm going to print that last paragraph out and tape it next to my television, then read it every time he swings at a two-strike ball in the dirt when it's second and third with two outs this season.
This is the difference in a sports fan (Michael Schur) and a fan of sports (Bill Simmons). Bill Simmons likes sports, but he only likes them in the realm of how he can compare them to other things and he isn't really interested in the factual part of sports, but how the sports make him feel. Michael Schur clearly enjoys sports. Michael Schur has evidence for why Crawford's signing made sense and Bill Simmons has hyperbolic proof based on a fictional situation.
(Though I give Bill credit when it comes to the NBA. He does appear to care more in-depth about the NBA.)
Seriously, this conversation is exposing Bill Simmons. His legion of dedicated SimmonsClones, please take note. This is your hero getting exposed by a knowledgeable sports fan who won't readily accept Bill's bizarre comparisons and proclamations of what the Red Sox should have done after the fact.
Schur: You're going to read that paragraph out loud 200 times?! That seems excessive. And for the record, I didn't really care about Theo's compensation from the Cubs. What did we think we were going to get for him? Some fans were holding out for Garza or something, but realistically, no one important was ever coming back to Boston. I also think it was annoying and petty to draw it out so long — but in this case, I blame Bud Selig.
Simmons: Good segue to another offseason "thing" that happened: We spent nearly two months looking for a manager while everyone predicted, "This is a charade, they're going to hire Bobby V.," only Cherington was clearly thinking, Whatever I do, I don't want to hire Bobby V. and interviewing everyone short of Darrell Johnson's embalmed corpse. What happened? You guessed it … we ended up hiring Bobby V.
So Bill doesn't seem to like the Bobby Valentine signing.
Schur: Here's the glass-half-full view of this: Boston has a ton of great players, and baseball managing isn't about constant moment-to-moment decisions the way basketball or football managing is. Really — and this goes doubly for Boston, or New York, or Philly — it's about keeping the team together and focused over an absurdly long season, and dealing with the constant crush of media types who work 18 hours a day trying to slake the thirst of idiots like us who care very deeply about whether starting Lars Anderson at DH against the Blue Jays in May would give the team a 2 percent better chance to win. I think Valentine is a good choice, given that.
(Bill thinking...backtrack, backtrack, backtrack)
Simmons: I can't decide where I fall on the Bobby V. thing yet.
Bill will let us know how he feels about Valentine after Valentine has won a World Series with the Red Sox or has gotten fired by the Red Sox. Bill should have an opinion after this all plays out on whether Valentine was a good choice as manager or not. I'm sure he'll also have an analogy to compare Valentine's time as Red Sox manager to.
It worries me that so many baseball people ridiculed it, but on the other hand, it's not like he failed miserably at his other two stops.
Other than never having managed a team that has won their division and now he is managing in the toughest division in baseball.
Simmons: We traded our shortstop (Marco Scutaro, the team's most reliable hitter down the stretch) to create cap space to sign Roy Oswalt even though baseball doesn't have a salary cap.
Just a few moments ago Bill was lamenting the excessive spending for luxury players the Red Sox exhibited which led to the signing of Carl Crawford. Now he is mad the Red Sox didn't spend more money to sign an aging pitcher coming off an injury-shortened season.
Simmons: Man, I hope you're right. Having a crappy shortstop is like having a crappy goalie, point guard, field goal kicker or closer. It just haunts you day after day after day.
Of course it does Bill. Here, have a cookie and let Michael Schur speak.
Schur: Well, remember, Pokey Reese played 96 games in 2004, sported a 46 OPS+, and the team won the World Series.
Again, lawyered. Don't bring that "I just thought of this and will throw it out there as a fact even though it isn't" shit in here. Michael Schur will swat it away every time.
Scutaro was a solid player, but he's 36. Baseball Prospectus has him as being worth about a win and a half next year, and there's a decent chance Aviles/Iglesias can match that.
Simmons: Believe me, I'm fine with Iglesias hitting .205 and being a vacuum at short.
Which perfectly explains why Bill was just concerned the Red Sox would start Iglesias or Aviles and have a crappy shortstop...because Bill is so comfortable with Iglesias starting at shortstop.
Simmons: And Crawford had 50 of the 125 worst at-bats I've ever seen a Red Sox player have last year.
This is just stupid and brings nothing to the discussion.
Simmons: Here's the part I don't get — every other team seems to have these live young arms falling out left and right. We spend $175 million a year — where are Boston's versions of Vinnie Pestano, Greg Holland, Addison Reed or whoever? Why don't we ever get lucky with those wacky Grant Balfour/Joel Peralta types?
Because the Red Sox generally don't focus on looking for relievers who have no history of pitching well in the majors, but have exhibited talent and will pitch for cheap. The Red Sox look for Billy Jenks and Scott Schoeneweis. There's nothing wrong with that either, but the Red Sox don't look for unproven relievers who have bounced around a bit like Grant Balfour.
Also, Bill is complaining the Red Sox don't have arms falling right and left, yet the Red Sox have produced Bard, Lester, Buchholz, and Papelbon over the past couple of years. They also have traded some of their best pitchers in the farm system to get guys like Adrian Gonzalez, so you have to factor that in as well. If you are trading for Adrian Gonzalez then it can negatively affect the quality of arms in the farm system. I wouldn't expect Bill to be able to think of things like this though. He wants to trade for Adrian Gonzalez and still have a stocked farm system.
Schur: But as to your other point, the minors have produced Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, and Bard in recent years, which ain't bad.
Michael Schur made this point...so now Bill has to backtrack quickly.
Simmons: True, but those were high-end blue chippers — I was thinking more about those random 45th-round picks who were former outfielders, get converted to the bullpen and suddenly start throwing 98,
This happens mostly in Bill's mind and doesn't happen very often in real life. Way to create a hyper-specific scenario to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about when confronted with the fact you don't have a point.
(Bill Simmons) "Why don't the Red Sox ever find competent catchers?"
(Michael Schur) "Jason Varitek caught for the Red Sox for years and Victor Martinez was here a few seasons ago."
(Bill Simmons) "True, but those are guys who look like catchers. Why can't the Red Sox find a competent catcher drafted in the 30th round who is 6'4" 200 pounds and hits 30 home runs per year, but also steals 30 bases? Why can't we find those guys?"
(Michael Schur speechless) "Because catchers who meet that hyper-specific scenario are incredibly rare?"
For instance, remember when El Guapo gloriously fell out of the sky in the late '90s? (And caused a 5.5 earthquake when he landed?) We've had bad luck finding those guys. And it seems like it's 100 percent luck. As Boone Logan would tell you.
Boone Logan was drafted in the 20th round and has always been a pitcher. Bill's complaint that the Red Sox don't find 45th round picks, guys who are former outfielders and get converted to the bullpen...well it just hurts my head he is complaining about this.
Simmons: For me, it narrowly edged J.D. Drew's contract officially expiring and Kevin Youkilis proposing to Tom Brady's sister as my favorite highlight of this offseason. It's been a rough winter.
Schur: But I disagree on Drew: He was a good player for the Red Sox. 2011 was kind of a wash, I don't wish that he were back, and he was at times frustrating to watch, but from 2007 to 2010 he was worth the money he was paid, while playing what might be the most difficult RF in baseball.
Challenge him, Bill! Do it!
Simmons: I've heard this argument before. I get it: Statistically, for what he brought to the table offensively and defensively, J.D. Drew was fairly compensated from 2007 to 2010
Sure, statistically J.D. Drew was a good signing, but this one time Bill saw Drew strike out on a called third strike and he didn't like the look on Drew's face so this meant J.D. Drew was a bad signing. So that's Bill's proof that Drew was a bad signing.
as long as you overlooked the part where you needed a quality fourth outfielder to bat against lefties for him, and also as long as you weren't expecting him to be fun to watch on a daily basis.
So as long as you were expecting a good baseball performance from Drew he was a good signing for the Red Sox, but if you watch sports not to watch sports, but as a form of entertainment much like MTV reality shows, J.D. Drew was a disappointment. This says a lot about how Bill Simmons views sports.
Schur: The point is, Drew was not a gigantic mistake. Lackey is (in all likelihood) a different story.
From a sports perspective. But J.D. Drew never smiled, was not fun to watch and there was that one time where he struck out looking. Bill just can't get past that.
Simmons: What do you think of my theory that you should never acquire a player if the fans on his current team are going to make fun of your fans after you get him?
It's stupid.
I really feel like I'm onto something here.
You aren't.
Schur: It's a little like saying you know it's going to rain because your bones ache — but I get the point.
The point Michael Schur gets? That Michael Schur has finally realized he can't discuss sports in a reasonable fashion with a person who is more interested in his half-assed theories being true than actually having an honest discussion.
Simmons: I'm excited for those three weeks before Dice-K's comeback start when I totally talk myself into the whole "He's going to turn it around because Bobby V. speaks Japanese!" thing.
Schur: That seems like tenuous causality at best, but I'm with you.
Again, this is why Bill Simmons doesn't allow comments on his columns. Michael Schur is a television producer/screenwriter and he is wiping the floor with Bill's theories, attempts at finding causality, and making Bill backtrack on dumb statements he has made. Bill is talking about his favorite baseball team. The same baseball team he wrote book on and this book made him a ton of money. This shouldn't be a foreign topic for Bill, but it appears people don't call him on his bullshit quite often. I don't know how he does podcasts with intelligent guests.
Simmons: I'm excited that my expectations aren't ludicrously sky-high like they were last year. ("Ludicrously sky-high" is never a good thing.) I'm excited to watch Red Sox games on my new iPad in various settings — the living room, dinner, the movies, school plays, you name it — without my wife or kids totally realizing it.
(In a Ron Burgundy voice) "I'm not sure if you heard me or not, but I've got an iPad. Yeah, I am pretty up to date on technology and can use that bad boy pretty much anywhere. It's one of those things that are expensive, but I can afford them. As you can see from the oil paintings on the wall and the signed poster of Adam Carola, people know me. If you want, you can touch my iPad, but careful...you will probably want to keep it."
Simmons: You're right. Most of all, I'm excited for us to get smeared in the Boston Globe by the Red Sox owners if they don't like this column.
So this was Bill Simmons whining about the Red Sox season before it even began and reminding us all how full of shit he sounds like when getting feedback on his statements from an intelligent Red Sox fan.
Bill has no inclination to write anymore. This frustrates me. He wants to do podcasts and email famous people, then share those email exchanges he had with famous people with his readers to show us he knows famous people. DID YOU KNOW MICHAEL RAPAPORT LIVES ON BILL'S STREET? BILL KNOWS JIMMY KIMMEL AND LET HIM PROVE IT BY RELAYING SOMETHING HILARIOUSLY UNFUNNY THAT JIMMY KIMMEL SAID!
So Bill doesn't write very much anymore and when he does write about his favorite teams, he tends to whine and complain as if the his Boston teams have committed the terrible crime of not winning the championship every single year and because of this he is so tortured...then he inserts a pop culture reference in to describe how he feels. Now Bill is complaining about the Red Sox before the season even begins. Maybe not exactly complaining or whining, but he sees pending doom and is trying to talk himself into being excited for the Red Sox season. Rather than write a column, Bill wanted to remind his readers he does indeed know famous people and have an email exchange (though it is really weird if this was an email exchange because the exchanges are short, so I don't believe this was done over email) with Michael Schur. Michael Schur is Regis Philbin's son-in-law and co-creator of "Parks and Recreation," a really funny and great show. He also had a blog a long time ago...something to do with Firing Joe Morgan. Why he is participating in an email exchange with Bill Simmons, I'll never know. This makes me lose 5% respect for him, not that anyone cares.
When the Boston Globe's Chris Gasper wrote about a potential Bobby Valentine–Ben Cherington rift last weekend, it broke new ground even for Red Sox fans. Our new coach and GM quarreling before our first regular-season game?
A writer wrote one column about controversy among the Red Sox ranks. Let's overreact and whine about the Red Sox season that hasn't even occurred yet with each other over 10,000 words.
They couldn't have held off until Patriots' Day? Die-hard Sox fans Michael Schur and Bill Simmons decided to ease the pain by trading e-mails about the 2012 season.
The only way Bill Simmons can be classified as a "diehard" Red Sox fan is because when he sees the Red Sox hopes for making the playoffs are going to "die," he decides it will be "hard" to watch any of their games since he only writes about the Red Sox once a year, or possibly more, but only if they are successful and make the playoffs. Other than that, I find it hard to believe he is a diehard fan.
Simmons: Let's recap everything that happened since Game 161 in late September. The first body blow: We totally choked away Game 162 (and a playoff spot), completed the biggest September collapse in baseball history, turned Robert Andino into the modern-day Bucky Bleeping Dent, spawned bitter pieces from both you and me and made me ask myself things like, "Why does it feel like we won that last World Series 40 years ago?"
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Red Sox didn't make the playoffs and are the first major league team to have ever blown a large lead in September as long as you don't count the other major league teams that have done this but Bill doesn't count these teams because he believes everything does and should revolve around the Red Sox.
Simmons: You can't back out now! You promised! Second, stories/rumors/e-mails/message board posts quickly started circulating that there was more clubhouse dissension than anyone realized.
There is no more reliable source of information than emails/rumors/message boards!
And trust me, the team already felt very clubhouse dissensiony.
From the perspective of an outsider who lives in California and hasn't actually been in the Red Sox clubhouse this year...that Red Sox clubhouse feels very dissesiony.
Schur: Maybe I'm naive, but I didn't have any idea about the clubhouse stuff until it blew up after the season was over.
Oh really? Bill Simmons had knowledge of the clubhouse dissension, he just didn't mention it at the time because he forgot to mention it. But he knew of the dissension. He knew! He was going to bring it up prior to the dissension being made public, but he just didn't get a chance what with only writing one column a week and all. So AFTER the dissension is made public, Bill tells us he knew of the dissension beforehand.
Simmons: Really? I remember watching other teams happily standing on the top step of the dugout, then seeing our guys grimly sitting next to each other, and thinking, All right, something feels wrong here.
What was "wrong" is the team wasn't pitching well and they were blowing the Wild Card lead by losing games. Bill may remember players looking grim, but he also didn't remember to bring this up at the time so I question whether he is being truthful. Though in Bill's defense, we all know if the Red Sox aren't World Series-bound he tends to ignore them completely...when he isn't busy saying baseball is dying simply because the Red Sox weren't competitive at the time. So it is possible Bill didn't get a chance to mention the Red Sox looked grim because he was too busy ignoring their existence.
The players could have also looked grim because the Red Sox team was playing poorly. That's highly possible.
Schur: You're like The Mentalist.
No, he's full of shit.
Schur: It definitely didn't look like a happy bunch of guys last September, but I attributed that to going 7-20.
How illogical to believe a team's mood depends on their performance on the field! This would never happen in Bill's opinion because a team that likes each other will always be successful. A baseball season completely depends on how the players get along.
Also, Bill is claiming dissension during the same season starting pitchers were eating fried chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse. Apparently a few people on the team liked each other enough to eat chicken and drink beer together.
Simmons: You're right, that 2001 team was openly unbearable. It was like one of those families that fight in restaurants in public. The 2011 team was more like one of those creepy, Ordinary People families that seem fine on the surface … but they're not.
And yet, no one reported on this at the time. All the reporting on the Red Sox's dysfunction comes AFTER the collapse. Funny how hindsight works like that, right?
Schur: Yeah, "Fried Chicken and Beer" is never going away. Ever. We'll be talking about Fried Chicken and Beer in 30 years. Which is silly, because I would set the over/under on "MLB clubhouses regularly stocked with fried chicken and/or beer" at 14.5, and take the over. When it leaked that Kevin Millar had the team taking Jack Daniel's shots before playoff games in 2004, people were happy about it, because they won. It's fascinating, but completely understandable, that the same exact behavior reads completely differently when a team loses.
Exactly. I have said the same thing. Clearly, great minds think alike. On that note, isn't there someone smarter for Michael Schur to correspond with? This is like watching Nerlens Noel compete against high school players.
This is the first indication that Michael Schur will reject Bill's comments and try to focus Bill away from inane theories and ground him more in reality.
Simmons: The offseason hits kept coming when Chicago hired Theo Epstein (the guy who built our two title teams) AND Jed Hoyer (the guy we always assumed would come back to replace Theo when Theo finally left).
Schur: Theo leaving burns pretty badly, though the fact that his last few free-agent acquisitions were so stunningly terrible makes it a little easier to swallow.
Clearly, Theo Epstein is washed up. He'll never sign another free agent that plays well.
Simmons: Yeah, it's hard to believe that the same guy who was once so obsessed with finding value, building around under-29 elite players, throwing gobs of money into his farm system and avoiding the old Red Sox mistake of splurging on free agents hitting their 30s was suddenly so willing to overpay the Crawfords and Lackeys.
I am sure this had nothing to do with a fan base and ownership that wants to compete with the Yankees on the free agent market for the "best" players available. I'm sure Epstein's sudden willingness to throw gobs of money at players had nothing to do with ownership and some fans (like Peter King) who expect the Red Sox to spend money or else they will be called cheap. Then Epstein would be accused of not putting a great product on the field simply because the players at each position aren't household names.
Simmons: Part of me wonders if, when you have that money available, you eventually can't resist the urge to say "Fuck it" and start spending it over sticking to what got you there.
That's exactly what happened to the Red Sox in some ways, Bill. This has happened with many other large market teams as well over the years. Thanks for catching up with the rest of us.
Schur: I think that any organization that has a ton of cash runs the risk of recklessly spending the cash, especially when there are very high expectations for the organization's performance. Partly because they know that they can cover their mistakes with more cash, and partly because, well, it's exciting to spend money, and less exciting not to spend it. In this case, I believe the Sox front office looked at an aging Yankees franchise, with multiple bad long-term contracts at key positions, and thought: "If we can get Adrian Gonzalez, John Lackey, and Carl Crawford, we can step on their throats and drum them into third place in the division for five years." They went 1-for-3.
Really? No one better for Michael Schur to exchange emails with?
This is exactly correct, yet again. While Bill is touches on the issue like only a helicopter fan can (I call someone who is a helicopter fan a person that is a true fan of the team, but only is a fan in general of the team and doesn't try or care to understand the in-depth knowledge of the team. It isn't necessarily an insult as long as the person doesn't try to pretend to know more than he/she does), Michael Schur points out WHY the Red Sox spent like they did.
Simmons: Also, they panicked because of what was happening in Boston that winter — the Pats were on a roll, the Celts had the NBA's best record, the Bruins were coming on (and headed for a title), and meanwhile, we were coming off a fairly boring Red Sox season and the whole "Look how nice Fenway is now!" dynamic had been played out.
No, Bill. Not at all. The Red Sox spent that money for baseball-related reasons, not for some soap opera reason in order to keep up with the rest of the Boston sports teams.
Has anyone ever discussed your favorite sports team with someone who clearly isn't on your level or is more of a helicopter fan of a team? I know it sounds egotistical to ask that, but we've probably all been there. I have a friend who can't even discuss his own team without sounding like an idiot and getting the names of the players on the team wrong (he calls NCAA official Karl Hess "Craig Hess"). That's how this exchange between Simmons and Schur feels. Michael Schur says something intelligent and Bill Simmons does his shtick that got old a few seasons ago. It doesn't feel like a conversation between two diehard Red Sox fans.
Getting Gonzalez made sense, but Crawford always felt like one of those, "Look at us! We made a big move! HEY, LOOK AT US!!!!" Steinbrennerian luxury purchases that big-budget teams make for headlines.
Bill Simmons is a genius when it comes to hindsight. Give him a few years, he can tell you everything a team did wrong. Expect him to say what is right or wrong at the time? Eh, he can't do that.
Schur: Maybe, maybe not. The previous year Crawford hit .307/.356/.495, and he was 28/29. He seemed for all the world like a guy who was finally realizing his potential, and they had every expectation that he'd be an elite player for at least three to four years.
Lawyered.
This isn't even a fair discussion. Michael Schur has actual evidence to refute Bill's claims that are based completely on hindsight.
Simmons: I'm going to print that last paragraph out and tape it next to my television, then read it every time he swings at a two-strike ball in the dirt when it's second and third with two outs this season.
This is the difference in a sports fan (Michael Schur) and a fan of sports (Bill Simmons). Bill Simmons likes sports, but he only likes them in the realm of how he can compare them to other things and he isn't really interested in the factual part of sports, but how the sports make him feel. Michael Schur clearly enjoys sports. Michael Schur has evidence for why Crawford's signing made sense and Bill Simmons has hyperbolic proof based on a fictional situation.
(Though I give Bill credit when it comes to the NBA. He does appear to care more in-depth about the NBA.)
Seriously, this conversation is exposing Bill Simmons. His legion of dedicated SimmonsClones, please take note. This is your hero getting exposed by a knowledgeable sports fan who won't readily accept Bill's bizarre comparisons and proclamations of what the Red Sox should have done after the fact.
Schur: You're going to read that paragraph out loud 200 times?! That seems excessive. And for the record, I didn't really care about Theo's compensation from the Cubs. What did we think we were going to get for him? Some fans were holding out for Garza or something, but realistically, no one important was ever coming back to Boston. I also think it was annoying and petty to draw it out so long — but in this case, I blame Bud Selig.
Simmons: I'm always for blaming Bud Selig.
Does it sound like Bill is keeping up? Michael Schur brings up a good point about no one of importance coming back to the Red Sox from the Cubs and Bill latches on to his last sentence and says he is always for blaming Bud Selig. Bill has no response to Schur's refutation that the Red Sox could have gotten something of value in return for Theo Epstein. Bill just makes a silly comment about Bud Selig always being to blame. This is why Simmons doesn't allow comments on his articles. His ego can't stand that he isn't allowed to spout nonsense and it be refuted in a public setting.Simmons: Good segue to another offseason "thing" that happened: We spent nearly two months looking for a manager while everyone predicted, "This is a charade, they're going to hire Bobby V.," only Cherington was clearly thinking, Whatever I do, I don't want to hire Bobby V. and interviewing everyone short of Darrell Johnson's embalmed corpse. What happened? You guessed it … we ended up hiring Bobby V.
So Bill doesn't seem to like the Bobby Valentine signing.
Schur: Here's the glass-half-full view of this: Boston has a ton of great players, and baseball managing isn't about constant moment-to-moment decisions the way basketball or football managing is. Really — and this goes doubly for Boston, or New York, or Philly — it's about keeping the team together and focused over an absurdly long season, and dealing with the constant crush of media types who work 18 hours a day trying to slake the thirst of idiots like us who care very deeply about whether starting Lars Anderson at DH against the Blue Jays in May would give the team a 2 percent better chance to win. I think Valentine is a good choice, given that.
(Bill thinking...backtrack, backtrack, backtrack)
Simmons: I can't decide where I fall on the Bobby V. thing yet.
Bill will let us know how he feels about Valentine after Valentine has won a World Series with the Red Sox or has gotten fired by the Red Sox. Bill should have an opinion after this all plays out on whether Valentine was a good choice as manager or not. I'm sure he'll also have an analogy to compare Valentine's time as Red Sox manager to.
It worries me that so many baseball people ridiculed it, but on the other hand, it's not like he failed miserably at his other two stops.
Other than never having managed a team that has won their division and now he is managing in the toughest division in baseball.
Simmons: We traded our shortstop (Marco Scutaro, the team's most reliable hitter down the stretch) to create cap space to sign Roy Oswalt even though baseball doesn't have a salary cap.
Just a few moments ago Bill was lamenting the excessive spending for luxury players the Red Sox exhibited which led to the signing of Carl Crawford. Now he is mad the Red Sox didn't spend more money to sign an aging pitcher coming off an injury-shortened season.
Simmons: Man, I hope you're right. Having a crappy shortstop is like having a crappy goalie, point guard, field goal kicker or closer. It just haunts you day after day after day.
Of course it does Bill. Here, have a cookie and let Michael Schur speak.
Schur: Well, remember, Pokey Reese played 96 games in 2004, sported a 46 OPS+, and the team won the World Series.
Again, lawyered. Don't bring that "I just thought of this and will throw it out there as a fact even though it isn't" shit in here. Michael Schur will swat it away every time.
Scutaro was a solid player, but he's 36. Baseball Prospectus has him as being worth about a win and a half next year, and there's a decent chance Aviles/Iglesias can match that.
Simmons: Believe me, I'm fine with Iglesias hitting .205 and being a vacuum at short.
Which perfectly explains why Bill was just concerned the Red Sox would start Iglesias or Aviles and have a crappy shortstop...because Bill is so comfortable with Iglesias starting at shortstop.
Simmons: And Crawford had 50 of the 125 worst at-bats I've ever seen a Red Sox player have last year.
This is just stupid and brings nothing to the discussion.
Simmons: Here's the part I don't get — every other team seems to have these live young arms falling out left and right. We spend $175 million a year — where are Boston's versions of Vinnie Pestano, Greg Holland, Addison Reed or whoever? Why don't we ever get lucky with those wacky Grant Balfour/Joel Peralta types?
Because the Red Sox generally don't focus on looking for relievers who have no history of pitching well in the majors, but have exhibited talent and will pitch for cheap. The Red Sox look for Billy Jenks and Scott Schoeneweis. There's nothing wrong with that either, but the Red Sox don't look for unproven relievers who have bounced around a bit like Grant Balfour.
Also, Bill is complaining the Red Sox don't have arms falling right and left, yet the Red Sox have produced Bard, Lester, Buchholz, and Papelbon over the past couple of years. They also have traded some of their best pitchers in the farm system to get guys like Adrian Gonzalez, so you have to factor that in as well. If you are trading for Adrian Gonzalez then it can negatively affect the quality of arms in the farm system. I wouldn't expect Bill to be able to think of things like this though. He wants to trade for Adrian Gonzalez and still have a stocked farm system.
Schur: But as to your other point, the minors have produced Lester, Buchholz, Papelbon, and Bard in recent years, which ain't bad.
Michael Schur made this point...so now Bill has to backtrack quickly.
Simmons: True, but those were high-end blue chippers — I was thinking more about those random 45th-round picks who were former outfielders, get converted to the bullpen and suddenly start throwing 98,
This happens mostly in Bill's mind and doesn't happen very often in real life. Way to create a hyper-specific scenario to make it sound like you knew what you were talking about when confronted with the fact you don't have a point.
(Bill Simmons) "Why don't the Red Sox ever find competent catchers?"
(Michael Schur) "Jason Varitek caught for the Red Sox for years and Victor Martinez was here a few seasons ago."
(Bill Simmons) "True, but those are guys who look like catchers. Why can't the Red Sox find a competent catcher drafted in the 30th round who is 6'4" 200 pounds and hits 30 home runs per year, but also steals 30 bases? Why can't we find those guys?"
(Michael Schur speechless) "Because catchers who meet that hyper-specific scenario are incredibly rare?"
For instance, remember when El Guapo gloriously fell out of the sky in the late '90s? (And caused a 5.5 earthquake when he landed?) We've had bad luck finding those guys. And it seems like it's 100 percent luck. As Boone Logan would tell you.
Boone Logan was drafted in the 20th round and has always been a pitcher. Bill's complaint that the Red Sox don't find 45th round picks, guys who are former outfielders and get converted to the bullpen...well it just hurts my head he is complaining about this.
Simmons: For me, it narrowly edged J.D. Drew's contract officially expiring and Kevin Youkilis proposing to Tom Brady's sister as my favorite highlight of this offseason. It's been a rough winter.
Schur: But I disagree on Drew: He was a good player for the Red Sox. 2011 was kind of a wash, I don't wish that he were back, and he was at times frustrating to watch, but from 2007 to 2010 he was worth the money he was paid, while playing what might be the most difficult RF in baseball.
Challenge him, Bill! Do it!
Simmons: I've heard this argument before. I get it: Statistically, for what he brought to the table offensively and defensively, J.D. Drew was fairly compensated from 2007 to 2010
Sure, statistically J.D. Drew was a good signing, but this one time Bill saw Drew strike out on a called third strike and he didn't like the look on Drew's face so this meant J.D. Drew was a bad signing. So that's Bill's proof that Drew was a bad signing.
as long as you overlooked the part where you needed a quality fourth outfielder to bat against lefties for him, and also as long as you weren't expecting him to be fun to watch on a daily basis.
So as long as you were expecting a good baseball performance from Drew he was a good signing for the Red Sox, but if you watch sports not to watch sports, but as a form of entertainment much like MTV reality shows, J.D. Drew was a disappointment. This says a lot about how Bill Simmons views sports.
Schur: The point is, Drew was not a gigantic mistake. Lackey is (in all likelihood) a different story.
From a sports perspective. But J.D. Drew never smiled, was not fun to watch and there was that one time where he struck out looking. Bill just can't get past that.
Simmons: What do you think of my theory that you should never acquire a player if the fans on his current team are going to make fun of your fans after you get him?
It's stupid.
I really feel like I'm onto something here.
You aren't.
Schur: It's a little like saying you know it's going to rain because your bones ache — but I get the point.
The point Michael Schur gets? That Michael Schur has finally realized he can't discuss sports in a reasonable fashion with a person who is more interested in his half-assed theories being true than actually having an honest discussion.
Simmons: I'm excited for those three weeks before Dice-K's comeback start when I totally talk myself into the whole "He's going to turn it around because Bobby V. speaks Japanese!" thing.
Schur: That seems like tenuous causality at best, but I'm with you.
Again, this is why Bill Simmons doesn't allow comments on his columns. Michael Schur is a television producer/screenwriter and he is wiping the floor with Bill's theories, attempts at finding causality, and making Bill backtrack on dumb statements he has made. Bill is talking about his favorite baseball team. The same baseball team he wrote book on and this book made him a ton of money. This shouldn't be a foreign topic for Bill, but it appears people don't call him on his bullshit quite often. I don't know how he does podcasts with intelligent guests.
Simmons: I'm excited that my expectations aren't ludicrously sky-high like they were last year. ("Ludicrously sky-high" is never a good thing.) I'm excited to watch Red Sox games on my new iPad in various settings — the living room, dinner, the movies, school plays, you name it — without my wife or kids totally realizing it.
(In a Ron Burgundy voice) "I'm not sure if you heard me or not, but I've got an iPad. Yeah, I am pretty up to date on technology and can use that bad boy pretty much anywhere. It's one of those things that are expensive, but I can afford them. As you can see from the oil paintings on the wall and the signed poster of Adam Carola, people know me. If you want, you can touch my iPad, but careful...you will probably want to keep it."
Simmons: You're right. Most of all, I'm excited for us to get smeared in the Boston Globe by the Red Sox owners if they don't like this column.
Schur: You didn't hear it from me, but rumor is, you have a prescription-pill problem.
How are those hockey tickets working out for you, Bill? (checks NHL standings) Oh, the Kings are only on the cusp of making the playoffs? No wonder you haven't written about them very much. No star to hitch that wagon to.So this was Bill Simmons whining about the Red Sox season before it even began and reminding us all how full of shit he sounds like when getting feedback on his statements from an intelligent Red Sox fan.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
3 comments Frank Deford Wishes Life was Still Like the Movie "Grease"
I remember growing up reading Frank Deford's articles in Sports Illustrated. Reading his columns today is like seeing Willie Mays in a Mets uniform or watching any other once-great athlete (author) dealing with impending age. I felt the same way about Furman Bisher, though it was still fun to write about him here, I am able to recognize he was once a great writer. Anyway, Frank Deford is concerned about NASCAR's popularity, those darn kids who like to listen to their iPods in the car, and how this relates to fixing cars. The article is about NASCAR, but it is also about how people don't like messing around with cars anymore. Clearly, the Internet is to blame. Also, where is everyone's leather jacket and does nobody roll up cigarettes in their t-shirt sleeve these days?
Individual sports are always volatile, and after being the next big thing, NASCAR's popularity has stalled. A lot had to do with the economy.
This is absolutely true. The economy is probably mostly to blame for the decline in NASCAR attendance. Since this article is about NASCAR, let's straighten one thing up at the very start. NASCAR is struggling with attendance right now, but the ratings for NASCAR races are very, very good. Since the premise of this article is NASCAR is declining in popularity, I feel it is important to mention that while NASCAR attendance is declining those square boxes with all the colors, we call them televisions, show that NASCAR still has a fan base who don't mind watching the sport. So the idea Frank Deford furthers (and then rambles away from until he is talking about iPods in cars) fails to be in true in my mind. Attendance is down, but the popularity of NASCAR doesn't seem to be on the decline as much.
And as for fans, when it became cut-back time, they had to think twice about gassing up those big old RVs and driving a far piece to sit in those ear-shattering stadiums.
I'm "Southern" which means I was born in the South and I have never watched a NASCAR race in person or on television. I always wanted to go to a NASCAR race just to see what it is like, but I also don't think I would enjoy it very much. I envision pony-tails, mullets, an extreme lack of shirts on men and women, really loud pop-country music, and a lot of dirt. Before I die, I want to go to a NASCAR race, but attending a NASCAR race doesn't seem like something a casual fan (or non-fan like me) of NASCAR would enjoy doing. I could be wrong and perhaps I'm not the best example to use.
So, NASCAR invested $5 million in research to find out how to get back out of the pits. To me, the most fascinating finding was that all those old, white guys, who were the bread-and-butter NASCAR constituency, were not being replicated by their sons and grandsons. Frankly, the younger generations don't care to mess around with cars.
Here is the problem with this finding...younger generations didn't want to mess around with cars in the early 2000's when NASCAR was peaking in attendance and popularity. Why was attendance great a decade ago, but is flattening out now? Am I to believe a decade ago the younger generation liked to mess around with cars, but the demographics have changed very drastically in the last decade?
But what NASCAR found out was that it's now only a platonic relationship. No more hands on. A whole cohort of our young boys -- and girls -- has been growing up without any interest in "tinkering" around with cars.
The first problem I see here is why would I want to "tinker" with my car when it works perfectly fine? If there is nothing wrong with my car, and I have no need to make it go faster than it already does, then I'm not going to "tinker" with the car. If I want to "tinker" with my car to make it go faster then I'm probably needlessly getting speeding tickets and endangering the lives of other drivers on the road. That's a different story, I guess.
Frank Deford doesn't link this study that NASCAR funded, so I am not sure exactly what the study revealed. I'm not sure NASCAR even had a study. Maybe Frank Deford got confused and there never was a study. There has to be a better reason for the decline in NASCAR attendance outside of young boys and girls not wanting to "tinker" with cars. I say this because plenty of people seem to be watching NASCAR on television, so the interest is still there. I think the first answer, which is the economy, is the issue at-hand. I know people who like to "tinker" with cars who don't watch NASCAR, so I do struggle a bit with this article saying the decline in the American love story between man and car is the reason for NASCAR's struggling attendance. People are watching on television, so there still seems to be interest in the sport.
In fact, it made me think that the last time I ever heard anybody talking about looking under the hood was Ross Perot,
Annnnnnnnnnnnd, we now begin our little trip down the rabbit hole that is Frank Deford's thoughts on cars, Ross Perot, and Indians.
when he ran for president back in '92, and he kept saying that all we had to do to fix all things in America was to just look under the hood.
To which, after being elected President, Bill Clinton spent eight years trying to look under the hood of interns and various other women to the disgust of the Republicans. Didn't Ross Perot say to look under the hood? Clinton just wanted to see what made this nation tick under the hood and it turned to be a combination of thong panties and cigars. Clinton was just trying to do what Ross Perot claimed he would do as President.
Well, NASCAR found nobody much wants to do that anymore. There are no more gearheads growing up in America.
Zero. None. There are no gearheads in America. Frank Deford saw the (unlinked and uncited) NASCAR findings, saw NASCAR has found the younger generation doesn't like "tinkering" with cars and has latched onto this as why NASCAR attendance is down...yet ratings are up. It's almost like fans like the sport, but don't go to the races because it is too expensive.
Sure, younger people still view automobiles as a necessary evil to get from A to B, but no less so than do Brazilians or Indians or Chinese.
Except for the French. Those bastards don't see a purpose for automobiles other than to get them from A to B. Don't even get Frank Deford started on how Egyptians view automobiles.
In fact, Americans aren't satisfied only to drive.
They want to drive AND have the air conditioning work. We can't have it all people!
They otherwise want to talk on the phone, eat and drink,
And this is relevant to NASCAR declining attendance in what way?
plug in their iPods, change CDs or fool around with the GPS.
Clearly Frank Deford doesn't have an iPod or a GPS. Most likely someone is plugging in their GPS and fooling around with the iPod, not the other way around. Though I do like the image of a person fooling around with the GPS. Does Frank Deford realize if a person fools around with the GPS it will constantly change the destination and make it very hard to reach the desired destination, thereby ruining the purpose of having a GPS?
(Frank Deford's wife) "Set the GPS for Atlantic Beach."
(Frank Deford sets the GPS for Atlantic Beach and then begins fooling around with the GPS to see how far it is to South Dakota)
(Four hours later Frank's wife gets concerned and wakes Frank up from his nap) "Are you sure we are supposed to be passing St. Louis on the way to Atlantic Beach?"
(Frank Deford) "Probably not, why are you driving this way?"
(Frank's wife) "It's what the GPS told me.
(Frank Deford) Oh, well I was fooling around with the GPS and wanted to see how far it was to South Dakota."
(Frank's wife opens the car door while the car is still moving and dives out of the car)
How many Americans would even get into cars if they couldn't be entertained while driving?
Considering millions of Americans get into their car everyday to go to work...I would say millions of Americans would get into their cars if they could not be entertained. Also, what does this have to do with NASCAR again?
If the government could just eliminate all the amusing stuff from cars, not many would get in them,
This is so absolutely false. I leave my mom's attic everyday to go to work 8 miles away from my house (ok, fine...my "work" is just another friend's attic where I spend the day watching old Star Trek episodes and try to create the first completely computer-automated baseball player). I'm not taking the bus nor am I walking to work. So if the car ride was just a boring ride without any music playing I would still get in my car because I am too good to ride the bus and I'm not walking 8 miles my friend's attic. I think this is probably true for the majority of Americans (my general feelings about not driving, not the part about working in a friend's attic).
And yet, I'm still not sure what Americans liking entertainment in their cars while driving said cars has to do with NASCAR's declining attendance.
and there goes the demand for foreign oil right there.
Sounds like you have everything solved then. So back to the whole NASCAR attendance issue? Any further thoughts on that which don't deal with "young people don't like cars, they like hip-hop music and pissing on my front lawn"?
Moreover, when it comes to cars, kids grow up being primarily accustomed to watching cars crashing in movies and on TV.
Yes, but the cars crash going very fast, which should be of interest to "the kids." Also, didn't older movies also feature cars crashing? I swear I remember a car crash or two in "Rebel Without a Cause." Not to mention, I'm pretty sure cars crash during a NASCAR race. So wouldn't the crashing of cars cause "the kids" to enjoy NASCAR more if they enjoy these types of television shows and movies, even if "the kids" don't know how to fix a car?
Cars aren't admired for racing anymore, for going fast.
If only there were a movie called "The Fast and Furious" and it made a ton of money at the box office and then spawned a bunch of sequels. Then, and only then, could kids appreciate how fast cars go.
And tinker? Researchers at the University of Michigan found that the kids who tinker more with the internet delay getting their driver's license.
You had to figure the Internet was to blame at some point for this problem of NASCAR's declining attendance. If kids would stay off the Internet and go "tinker" with a car then those kids would also eventually get into watching NASCAR and buy tickets to race. What I'm saying is we should really get rid of the Internet.
Not wanting a driver's license? Next to making out, that was the most important rite of passage in an American teenager's life.
Which it still is an important rite of passage. I'm pretty sure this article advocates excessive spending and pre-marital sex, preferably in a car, which I wouldn't expect from Frank Deford.
What's funny is this study in reality had nothing to do with "tinkering" with cars, racing these cars or even NASCAR. What was it about? Moving skills to areas of the United States during a tough economy. So even when the answer to the NASCAR attendance problem isn't about the economy, it still ties into the economy in a certain way. So while Frank Deford is correct about this conclusion, it still takes a few degrees of separation for a child to get a license, then enjoy messing around with cars and finally wanting to attend a NASCAR race. I'm not sure why, outside of the economy, the younger generation enjoyed "tinkering" with cars a decade ago when NASCAR attendance soared and now this need to "tinker" is non-existent. Frank doesn't sufficiently explain this huge demographics change to me.
Look, I wish NASCAR well. I hope it gets people back to the races,
The ratings are really good. The trick is to take his popularity on television and translate it into attendance at races.
but it will have to do it with stars and steroids and point spreads, like all the other sports.
I'm not entirely sure what steroids have to do with NASCAR and no matter how many people like racing the stars of the sport are always going to help drive attendance. This would be true even if every person in the country loved "tinkering" with cars. Stars drive sports.
Nobody cool wants to look under the hood anymore. They want to look at Facebook and YouTube.
Then watch a NASCAR race on television. We also have to remember NASCAR tracks can hold over 100,000 fans in attendance. That's a lot of people to fill up the stands.
I can officially declare that, as of 2012, the American love affair with the car is over. Cars are so Greatest Generation.
Which explains why NASCAR races are second only to the NFL in television viewership. Gee, with the popularity still seemingly high, there must be another reason fans aren't attending the races as often. Tickets to a NASCAR race are free, right?
Individual sports are always volatile, and after being the next big thing, NASCAR's popularity has stalled. A lot had to do with the economy.
This is absolutely true. The economy is probably mostly to blame for the decline in NASCAR attendance. Since this article is about NASCAR, let's straighten one thing up at the very start. NASCAR is struggling with attendance right now, but the ratings for NASCAR races are very, very good. Since the premise of this article is NASCAR is declining in popularity, I feel it is important to mention that while NASCAR attendance is declining those square boxes with all the colors, we call them televisions, show that NASCAR still has a fan base who don't mind watching the sport. So the idea Frank Deford furthers (and then rambles away from until he is talking about iPods in cars) fails to be in true in my mind. Attendance is down, but the popularity of NASCAR doesn't seem to be on the decline as much.
And as for fans, when it became cut-back time, they had to think twice about gassing up those big old RVs and driving a far piece to sit in those ear-shattering stadiums.
I'm "Southern" which means I was born in the South and I have never watched a NASCAR race in person or on television. I always wanted to go to a NASCAR race just to see what it is like, but I also don't think I would enjoy it very much. I envision pony-tails, mullets, an extreme lack of shirts on men and women, really loud pop-country music, and a lot of dirt. Before I die, I want to go to a NASCAR race, but attending a NASCAR race doesn't seem like something a casual fan (or non-fan like me) of NASCAR would enjoy doing. I could be wrong and perhaps I'm not the best example to use.
So, NASCAR invested $5 million in research to find out how to get back out of the pits. To me, the most fascinating finding was that all those old, white guys, who were the bread-and-butter NASCAR constituency, were not being replicated by their sons and grandsons. Frankly, the younger generations don't care to mess around with cars.
Here is the problem with this finding...younger generations didn't want to mess around with cars in the early 2000's when NASCAR was peaking in attendance and popularity. Why was attendance great a decade ago, but is flattening out now? Am I to believe a decade ago the younger generation liked to mess around with cars, but the demographics have changed very drastically in the last decade?
But what NASCAR found out was that it's now only a platonic relationship. No more hands on. A whole cohort of our young boys -- and girls -- has been growing up without any interest in "tinkering" around with cars.
The first problem I see here is why would I want to "tinker" with my car when it works perfectly fine? If there is nothing wrong with my car, and I have no need to make it go faster than it already does, then I'm not going to "tinker" with the car. If I want to "tinker" with my car to make it go faster then I'm probably needlessly getting speeding tickets and endangering the lives of other drivers on the road. That's a different story, I guess.
Frank Deford doesn't link this study that NASCAR funded, so I am not sure exactly what the study revealed. I'm not sure NASCAR even had a study. Maybe Frank Deford got confused and there never was a study. There has to be a better reason for the decline in NASCAR attendance outside of young boys and girls not wanting to "tinker" with cars. I say this because plenty of people seem to be watching NASCAR on television, so the interest is still there. I think the first answer, which is the economy, is the issue at-hand. I know people who like to "tinker" with cars who don't watch NASCAR, so I do struggle a bit with this article saying the decline in the American love story between man and car is the reason for NASCAR's struggling attendance. People are watching on television, so there still seems to be interest in the sport.
In fact, it made me think that the last time I ever heard anybody talking about looking under the hood was Ross Perot,
Annnnnnnnnnnnd, we now begin our little trip down the rabbit hole that is Frank Deford's thoughts on cars, Ross Perot, and Indians.
when he ran for president back in '92, and he kept saying that all we had to do to fix all things in America was to just look under the hood.
To which, after being elected President, Bill Clinton spent eight years trying to look under the hood of interns and various other women to the disgust of the Republicans. Didn't Ross Perot say to look under the hood? Clinton just wanted to see what made this nation tick under the hood and it turned to be a combination of thong panties and cigars. Clinton was just trying to do what Ross Perot claimed he would do as President.
Well, NASCAR found nobody much wants to do that anymore. There are no more gearheads growing up in America.
Zero. None. There are no gearheads in America. Frank Deford saw the (unlinked and uncited) NASCAR findings, saw NASCAR has found the younger generation doesn't like "tinkering" with cars and has latched onto this as why NASCAR attendance is down...yet ratings are up. It's almost like fans like the sport, but don't go to the races because it is too expensive.
Sure, younger people still view automobiles as a necessary evil to get from A to B, but no less so than do Brazilians or Indians or Chinese.
Except for the French. Those bastards don't see a purpose for automobiles other than to get them from A to B. Don't even get Frank Deford started on how Egyptians view automobiles.
In fact, Americans aren't satisfied only to drive.
They want to drive AND have the air conditioning work. We can't have it all people!
They otherwise want to talk on the phone, eat and drink,
And this is relevant to NASCAR declining attendance in what way?
plug in their iPods, change CDs or fool around with the GPS.
Clearly Frank Deford doesn't have an iPod or a GPS. Most likely someone is plugging in their GPS and fooling around with the iPod, not the other way around. Though I do like the image of a person fooling around with the GPS. Does Frank Deford realize if a person fools around with the GPS it will constantly change the destination and make it very hard to reach the desired destination, thereby ruining the purpose of having a GPS?
(Frank Deford's wife) "Set the GPS for Atlantic Beach."
(Frank Deford sets the GPS for Atlantic Beach and then begins fooling around with the GPS to see how far it is to South Dakota)
(Four hours later Frank's wife gets concerned and wakes Frank up from his nap) "Are you sure we are supposed to be passing St. Louis on the way to Atlantic Beach?"
(Frank Deford) "Probably not, why are you driving this way?"
(Frank's wife) "It's what the GPS told me.
(Frank Deford) Oh, well I was fooling around with the GPS and wanted to see how far it was to South Dakota."
(Frank's wife opens the car door while the car is still moving and dives out of the car)
How many Americans would even get into cars if they couldn't be entertained while driving?
Considering millions of Americans get into their car everyday to go to work...I would say millions of Americans would get into their cars if they could not be entertained. Also, what does this have to do with NASCAR again?
If the government could just eliminate all the amusing stuff from cars, not many would get in them,
This is so absolutely false. I leave my mom's attic everyday to go to work 8 miles away from my house (ok, fine...my "work" is just another friend's attic where I spend the day watching old Star Trek episodes and try to create the first completely computer-automated baseball player). I'm not taking the bus nor am I walking to work. So if the car ride was just a boring ride without any music playing I would still get in my car because I am too good to ride the bus and I'm not walking 8 miles my friend's attic. I think this is probably true for the majority of Americans (my general feelings about not driving, not the part about working in a friend's attic).
And yet, I'm still not sure what Americans liking entertainment in their cars while driving said cars has to do with NASCAR's declining attendance.
and there goes the demand for foreign oil right there.
Sounds like you have everything solved then. So back to the whole NASCAR attendance issue? Any further thoughts on that which don't deal with "young people don't like cars, they like hip-hop music and pissing on my front lawn"?
Moreover, when it comes to cars, kids grow up being primarily accustomed to watching cars crashing in movies and on TV.
Yes, but the cars crash going very fast, which should be of interest to "the kids." Also, didn't older movies also feature cars crashing? I swear I remember a car crash or two in "Rebel Without a Cause." Not to mention, I'm pretty sure cars crash during a NASCAR race. So wouldn't the crashing of cars cause "the kids" to enjoy NASCAR more if they enjoy these types of television shows and movies, even if "the kids" don't know how to fix a car?
Cars aren't admired for racing anymore, for going fast.
If only there were a movie called "The Fast and Furious" and it made a ton of money at the box office and then spawned a bunch of sequels. Then, and only then, could kids appreciate how fast cars go.
And tinker? Researchers at the University of Michigan found that the kids who tinker more with the internet delay getting their driver's license.
You had to figure the Internet was to blame at some point for this problem of NASCAR's declining attendance. If kids would stay off the Internet and go "tinker" with a car then those kids would also eventually get into watching NASCAR and buy tickets to race. What I'm saying is we should really get rid of the Internet.
Not wanting a driver's license? Next to making out, that was the most important rite of passage in an American teenager's life.
Which it still is an important rite of passage. I'm pretty sure this article advocates excessive spending and pre-marital sex, preferably in a car, which I wouldn't expect from Frank Deford.
What's funny is this study in reality had nothing to do with "tinkering" with cars, racing these cars or even NASCAR. What was it about? Moving skills to areas of the United States during a tough economy. So even when the answer to the NASCAR attendance problem isn't about the economy, it still ties into the economy in a certain way. So while Frank Deford is correct about this conclusion, it still takes a few degrees of separation for a child to get a license, then enjoy messing around with cars and finally wanting to attend a NASCAR race. I'm not sure why, outside of the economy, the younger generation enjoyed "tinkering" with cars a decade ago when NASCAR attendance soared and now this need to "tinker" is non-existent. Frank doesn't sufficiently explain this huge demographics change to me.
Look, I wish NASCAR well. I hope it gets people back to the races,
The ratings are really good. The trick is to take his popularity on television and translate it into attendance at races.
but it will have to do it with stars and steroids and point spreads, like all the other sports.
I'm not entirely sure what steroids have to do with NASCAR and no matter how many people like racing the stars of the sport are always going to help drive attendance. This would be true even if every person in the country loved "tinkering" with cars. Stars drive sports.
Nobody cool wants to look under the hood anymore. They want to look at Facebook and YouTube.
Then watch a NASCAR race on television. We also have to remember NASCAR tracks can hold over 100,000 fans in attendance. That's a lot of people to fill up the stands.
I can officially declare that, as of 2012, the American love affair with the car is over. Cars are so Greatest Generation.
Which explains why NASCAR races are second only to the NFL in television viewership. Gee, with the popularity still seemingly high, there must be another reason fans aren't attending the races as often. Tickets to a NASCAR race are free, right?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
0 comments MMQB Review: Angry Saints Fans Can't Believe the Injustice of Ramifcations for Sean Payton's Actions
Last week Peter detailed Ex-QB Broncos move to joining the New York Jets and he also discussed the Saints bounty punishments that were seen by some as extraordinarily harsh. This week Peter discusses how the New Orleans community is rallying around Sean Payton and the Saints organization. The New Orleans residents are angry the NFL had the audacity to punish Sean Payton for the bounties that were put on some NFL players by the Saints defense. I always enjoy a good community rally around the idea there shouldn't be consequences for a person's actions. This is all going down about the way I would have expected. I sort of figured Saints fans wouldn't like any type of punishment on the organization for their wrongdoing. It's much easier to rally around a person and not have to think, "Hmm, is the punishment deserved in this situation based on the violation committed?" Mob mentality, or lack of an intelligent mentality among the mob, is fantastic.
Peter covers other draft-related issues in this MMQB as well, like apparently there are other players who have declared for the NFL Draft this year other than Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III. I know, I was as shocked as you are to hear this. Peter tells us a little bit about one other player not named "Luck" or "Griffin" in this draft. So by my calculations that is 3 players who have entered the 2012 NFL Draft. My favorite team picks 9th, so I'm not sure there will be any players available to be drafted at that point...if Peter's coverage of the 2012 NFL Draft is accurate of course.
Two headlines of the morning. Can't figure out which I like more,
Fortunately, MMQB is approximately 194 pages long. So there is time to fit both headlines in, as well as a little bit of whining about how difficult traveling around the United States is, with a little bit of inaccurate and annoying musings on the current state of the Red Sox.
New Orleans is getting really ticked off about the bounty sanctions on the Saints, and fans are responding with their wallets.
I'm not sure what happened is worth being ticked off about. Do Saints fans not like the harsh penalties, do Saints fans think the Saints shouldn't have been punished at all, or they just don't have much going on and feel the need to protest something? I can see how Saints fans would be angry at their favorite team, but to act as if an injustice has been done to the Saints? I don't see that.
The Eagles are winging their way to Texas to work out Ryan Tannehill today. Hmmmm.
An NFL team is working out a player they may or may not have interest in...has this ever happened before? Hmmmmmmm.
Jimmy Buffett did a concert last night on the waterfront in New Orleans. He wore a "Free Sean Payton'' T-shirt.
"In the most awkward moment of the night, Buffett then asked the audience if it wouldn't easier just to play his CD's through the loudspeaker so he could go home and count his cash, rather than forcing him to play music as the audience drunkenly attempts to pretend they aren't 60 years old and ignorant to the fact all of the good years of their life have passed them by. Buffett then referred to the audience as 'useless sheep' and started selling his licensed apparel with a 200% markup on the already 300% marked up price...naturally his apparel sold out in 20 minutes."
He dedicated his first song to his friend and Saints head coach Payton: "Sitting Here in Limbo."
Then Buffett opened up a mediocre coffee house in the New Orleans area that sold his mediocre beer inside his mediocre restaurant. He charges a cover charge of $20 for anyone to enter the coffee house...naturally it is packed every morning at 6am.
There is a town lots of New Orleans-area residents go to when they want to fish, Delacroix, La. It was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina.
The fact the area was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina doesn't mean the residents of that area can go around acting like idiots. So this information is irrelevant to me. If anything, the fact this area was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina should give this area more perspective on what a real tragedy looks like...and the real tragedy doesn't look like Sean Payton being suspended from coaching for a year.
Payton and the Saints were in the wrong concerning the bounty scandal. Deal with the punishment and quit crying about it. Get a community movement together for something that actually fucking matters, don't rally together so some rich white guy who doesn't even need to work over the next year can make a few more million dollars this year as the head coach of an NFL team.
As the cars got closer, the drivers could see she was selling "Free Sean Payton'' T-shirts.
He isn't incarcerated. This is lunacy. Why not rally around and spend money on causes that really matter? Why act like Sean Payton is in the right on this issue? He's not even in the right. His team collected bounties on players and that was wrong to do. All of this occurred while Sean Payton was the head coach, so he is being punished. He isn't being jailed, he is living life better than 99.5% of the New Orleans residents and you are rallying around him with shirts that say "Free Sean Payton," as if he was wrongly convicted of a crime. The idiocy of an American mob can never be understated. Only in this country can we sell "Free Person X" shirts for a person who isn't convicted or suspected of a crime.
What's funny is Peter has spent two MMQB's over the last month wishing he could make political statements in his MMQB. Here's a chance to make a statement involving sports and he reports this story without any obvious comment. Well, Peter is making a subtle comment by focusing on those who think Payton's suspension is unduly harsh in MMQB.
Outside the Superdome Sunday afternoon, about 30 locals gathered to protest NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's year-long suspension of Payton. One carried a sign reading, "Go to hell Goodell."
They are so quirky, those New Orleans people. By the way, Goodell says "you're welcome" for helping convince Tom Benson to not move away from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Benson wanted to get the hell out of New Orleans after Katrina hit and Goodell/Tagliabue convinced him not to do this. You could be an NFL-less city or cheer for the Los Angeles Saints. That look of non-gratitude means so much to Goodell.
Several wore T-shirts that read: "Quit hatin' on my boy Payton."
The world is against you. There should be no repercussions for placing bounties on and trying to intentionally injure opposing players.
The Saints had two $100,000-plus suites available for the 2012 season as of the middle of March. Within 24 hours after the league's sanctions of the Saints were announced, both suites were sold. In addition, the Saints ticket office, in the three days after the sanctions were announced, had more than 150 callers asking to buy season tickets, with most saying they were doing it to show support for the team in the wake of the league's sanctions.
It is good to see it takes a bad cause to get the community to rally around the Saints.
There's a groundswell of anger in New Orleans, from what I can tell.
Anger at....who? The Saints did the crime. The punishment was harsh, but the Saints did the crime. Why should they not be punished? Are the idiotic Saints fans saying NOTHING should be done by the NFL? Or is it Sean Payton who they thinks deserves a pass? After all, this is America, you should pretty much be able to make any decision and never have to face any repercussions of that decision.
But I know New Orleans. It's not going to go away,
Peter "knows" New Orleans. He knows the entire city.
The Super Bowl is in New Orleans this season. Remember the booing Goodell got at the NFL Draft last year? That could sound charitable compared to the reception he could hear in New Orleans during Super Bowl week.
I am sure the sound of morons booing him while greatly hurt Goodell's feelings. Speaking of feelings, I have a feeling the Saints fans would have thought differently of the bounties if their precious Saint Brees had gotten hurt by a team who placed a bounty on his angelic head. No matter though. I'd love to hear suggestions from these "Free Sean Payton" folks on what an appropriate punishment should be.
Fact is, this is the time of year -- 24 days before Round 1 -- when teams buzz from town to town to get their drafting ducks in a row. The Eagles working out Tannehill could just be Philly doing its due diligence on a good player. That's what it probably is. But with the Eagles and quarterbacks, you never know. It could be more.
It very well could. I don't know why the Eagles wouldn't sign Mike Vick to a $100 million contract and then draft his replacement less than a year later. It makes sense to me. The Eagles certainly don't have any offensive line or linebacker needs that's for sure.
More from Tannehill shortly. Now for the remnants of the NFL meetings, and looking ahead to the Kiperization of our lives over the next three-plus weeks:
"Kiperization" means "talking about Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III and ignoring most of the other players in the 2012 NFL Draft."
1. If Roger Goodell is talking about changing the culture of the league, he should start with some NFL Network programming.
It's been very clear from the beginning that Peter King thinks the punishment on the Saints and Payton is excessive. He hasn't really told any stories of people who support the suspension or punishments. I feel like I need to mention this.
Number five on the list was a linebacker from the '50s, Hardy Brown, who played the prime of his career with the 49ers. A thin, 6-foot Texan, Brown perfected nailing blockers and ballcarriers in the open field with shoulder shots, knocking out more than his share in a 10-season career. Brown was shown making several brutal shots -- legal, but brutal -- and then he appeared on camera. Very matter-of-factly in the NFL Network piece (produced by NFL Films), he talked about the Rams putting a $500 bounty on him.
The segment wasn't quite glorifying the bounty aspect. But Brown told the story with a bit of a smirk, as though he was reveling in it.
How is this different from Peter King talking to Brett Favre about the bounty on his head during the 2009 NFC Championship Game? I'm not saying NFL Network shouldn't pull this segment, but Brown was the victim of the bounty, not the perpetrator of the bounty.
If I'm the Saints, I'm searching YouTube today for the Brown segment, and I'm showing it when I appeal the league's sanctions.
What exactly would this prove? Should Roger Goodell suspend a 75 year old man for putting a bounty on Hardy Brown? Goodell is aiming to CHANGE the culture of football. He has stated this quite a few times. So Goodell is already acknowledging the bounty culture is present and needs to be changed. Therefore this video would provide no supporting evidence for the Saints to get the appeal approved because it would be a part of the bounty program that Goodell is trying to change.
Wait -- I found it.
Seriously Peter, you do realize you can edit MMQB?
As usual, Peter is letting his high regard for Sean Payton get in the way of his reporting. Peter can not like the suspensions and think they are too harsh, that's his right. But, Peter is trying to give the Saints talking points on how to beat the suspension and is highlighting the opposing viewpoint without talking to anyone who thinks the punishment was just. I'm not asking it to be fair and balanced, just say you like Sean Payton and think the punishment is too harsh because you have a personal interest in the case.
But maybe Goodell could be persuaded to soften the team punishment, given two factors: Williams doesn't work there anymore
Williams left on his own accord and the reasoning didn't have anything to do with the bounty scandal. I'm not sure how three years of bounties can be mitigated by the offending coach taking a new job for reasons that don't have to do with the bounty scandal. The bounties still occurred and Payton still did nothing about them. That doesn't change when Williams moves on to coach the Rams.
I read the item Sunday on ProFootballTalk.com, saying in essence that the coaches on the staff wouldn't take kindly to an interloper who doesn't know the team, and I don't doubt it's true. But this is a unique situation in pro football history. I'd be stunned if defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, the only non-sanctioned staffer who's been an NFL head coach before, didn't accept Parcells openly.
I'd be glad for the Saints to hire Bill Parcells for just one year. The Saints are in my favorite team's division and Parcells coaching the Saints doesn't concern me at all. He's 71 years old and every player would know he is a short-timer.
Parcells history interlude:
Noted NFL Films analyst Greg Cosell says Tannehill is a more accurate passer on the run than Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, which is something to say for a guy who played wide receiver for two-plus seasons while waiting for the quarterback job to be his in 2010.
Oh Peter, with your factually incorrect statements. Ryan Tannehill didn't wait for the quarterback job to be his in 2010. Jerrod Johnson started the year off as the starting quarterback and Tannehill got the job because after Johnson played poorly in his seven starts. So Tannehill didn't wait for the job to be his, he got the job because Johnson played badly.
7. Bill Belichick is showing Greg Schiano the ropes.
I wondered the other day, when Belichick retires, if Schiano is the kind of guy he'd recommend to be his successor as Patriots coach. You never know what the future could bring.
Do you mind if Schiano coaches a few years in Tampa Bay and proves to be a competent NFL head coach first before deciding he is Belchick's successor?
8. Stephen Ross is not backing down.
Unbelievably, Stephen Ross has his own spin for why the Dolphins have missed out on players and coaches over the last couple of years.
Ross told me he never offered his coach job to Jim Harbaugh last year
Because Harbaugh probably wouldn't have accepted the job compared to the 49ers job.
and the Dolphins didn't have the comfort level and familiarity with Peyton Manning that Denver had with him.
Which is why Manning didn't want to play in Miami.
He also said he thinks Jeff Ireland "has done a terrific job and is a great talent evaluator,''
So the owner of an NFL team is publicly supporting his General Manager? Has this ever happened before? This is clearly a sign there are no problems in the Dolphins organization even though reality hasn't always agreed with this assessment of Ireland having done a terrific job as Dolphins GM.
As one GM told me during the meetings: "Just watch it ruin Mark Sanchez. He can't take the booing as it is. With Tebow subbing for him every game and the pressure to get the ball to Santonio Holmes, Sanchez will crack.''
Personally, I am excited to watch it all fall apart. The dumbest column I have read in a while (and I can't remember where I read it) said that Ex-QB Broncosmania was over once the Broncos signed Peyton Manning. With QB Jets in New York, QB Broncosmania is just getting started.
I disagree, vehemently. I don't know if Tebow's ever going to be a starting quarterback in the league for five or six years, or for any length of time. But I do know he can be an asset to a winning team. And if Sanchez can't take the pressure, that's tough. He should play somewhere else.
So you...do agree in a way? The GM wasn't saying it wouldn't work, he was saying Sanchez would crack at the pressure. Peter also said if Sanchez can't take the pressure he should go somewhere else. So the GM is saying Sanchez will crack and Peter is saying if Sanchez cracks he should go play for a different team. It's not the same thing, but these are diametrically opposing viewpoints.
I thought Tebow was going to be used five to eight snaps a game, but listening to coach Rex Ryan in Florida, he sounds like he's open to more -- up to 20 -- with the field spread, near the goal line, on two-point conversions, and maybe even using Tebow as the personal protector on the punt team. Having a defense in alert mode for Tebow will be a benefit no matter how accurate he is. Or isn't.
But the issue is, and I know Peter isn't stupid so he has to be willfully ignoring this point, is if Sanchez cracks under the pressure of having QB Jets behind him, then the entire Jets offense will run around QB Jets' skills. THAT is the problem. Having QB Jets as the backup behind a shaky starter is essentially the Jets saying they can live with QB Jets as the starting quarterback.
On Friday night, Gruden's session with Andrew Luck was on, and he challenged Luck for making a dumb read on a throw against USC -- on Green Right Slot Spider 3 Y Banana, one of Luck's favorite plays and one that he just got greedy on. He should have checked down to the fullback, Gruden was saying, but instead threw to his right to the wideout, with the matador cornerback for USC picking it off and taking it all the way back for a go-ahead touchdown late in the fourth quarter
Luck accepted why he should be happy to take the short gains instead of the big risks that backfire. "You can't go broke taking a profit,'' Luck said to Gruden.
Thanks Matt Ryan! Why take a risk when you can check down? Why throw a pass further than five yards pass the line of scrimmage and take a risk?
I'm not for a quarterback taking risks, but making constant check downs because you are afraid to make a mistake isn't what great quarterbacks do. Great quarterbacks don't take this risk in the fourth quarter of a close game either, so if Luck wants to be great then he needs to learn the time and place to take a risk. Otherwise, the defense will let him check down all game and I'm not sure how effective the offense will be.
Then Peter editorializes again by using a quote from DeMaurice Smith protesting the flow of information from the commissioner's office about the bounty scandal. It's so abundantly clear that Peter thinks the punishment is overly harsh and I can't help but think he wouldn't feel this way if he didn't personally like Sean Payton.
"Anything short of reverence is subject to ridicule.''
Why the Buffalo Bills are excited, now that Mario Williams is on the team:
Just thinking: Jack Elway worked with Oliver Luck. John Elway played for Stanford. Jack Elway coached Stanford. Andrew Luck played for Stanford. John Elway went to work for the Broncos, and as his first major act running the football operations, signed Peyton Manning in free agency after Manning was made expendable by the prospect of Indianapolis drafting Andrew Luck. That's one strange circle of life.
"It's the wheel of fortune, it's the leap of faith, it's the band of hope, til we find our place."
By the way, having random baby lions hanging around the studio while animation is being drawn is a bad idea. I don't care how cute the baby lions are.
Two hours down the road from Sanford, Fla., site of the Trayvon Martin killing that has inflamed the nation, I sat down for a relaxing exhibition game in Port St. Lucie the other day. On the scoreboard before the game was an ad, with a voiceover by the PA announcer, for a shooting range and gun shop near the stadium.
A fan (presumably a local person, though he never said) who I'd been talking with a couple of seats away noticed me listening to the ad -- with nine soundproof areas in which to practice shooting -- and said, "You're not in New York anymore, Peter.''
Yes, not every state can have gun crime like The District of Columbia. I'm pretty sure The District of Columbia is really close to Florida, as is Missouri, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Delaware...six other states that round out the Top 10 in firearm murders per 100,000 people in a state.
5. I think the reason Greg Cosell is so good analyzing the NFL -- whether on talk shows, TV, writing or Twitter -- is he often makes you think. As with this tweet over the weekend about the value of running backs: "No question lot of late rd/FA RB have been successful. Inarguable. Question then becomes where do you draft a RB, regardless of talent?''
2011: Five 1st or 2nd round picks.
2010: Four 1st or 2nd round picks.
2009: Seven 1st or 2nd round picks.
2008: Seven 1st or 2nd round picks.
In that span, five times a 6th/7th/UDFA has been in the Top 10 in rushing yards in a season. So while Cosell makes me think, he also needs to understand a little research works wonders. If a team wants an impact running back, I think the earlier rounds are the place to find this.
c. Are you seriously telling me Danny Ainge tried to trade Rajon Rondo? What a ballplayer. Rondo being Rondo is the only way the Celtics have a chance in the playoffs. What a performance Sunday against the Heat.
Yes, Ainge tried to trade Rondo earlier in the year because he is a great player and if the Celtics were rebuilding then Rondo is the guy who get the most value back in a trade.
f. The problem with the women's game, to me, is that all four top seeds made it to the Final Four. Women's basketball needs a George Mason or Butler to happen. It's not March Madness in women's basketball. It's March Regularity.
Incorrect in my opinion. Regardless of what seeds make the women's college basketball Final Four, as long as the tournament takes place the same time as the men's tournament and it continues to feature women's basketball (which is a sport America has consistently shown is not being accepted as a preferred sport), it will not ever be as popular as the men's NCAA Tournament.
k. Beernerdness: As long as we've talked about Jimmy Buffett in this column, I raised a couple of cups of LandShark Lager while in Florida. It could have a little more taste, but it's better than Bud.
"It's better than Bud." I just pissed in a cup and drank it. My piss is better than Bud also. That doesn't say much.
Somewhere Jimmy Buffett is laughing that he just sold another bottle of his mediocre beer...Sean Payton is probably playing the bongos as Buffett laughs.
Peter covers other draft-related issues in this MMQB as well, like apparently there are other players who have declared for the NFL Draft this year other than Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III. I know, I was as shocked as you are to hear this. Peter tells us a little bit about one other player not named "Luck" or "Griffin" in this draft. So by my calculations that is 3 players who have entered the 2012 NFL Draft. My favorite team picks 9th, so I'm not sure there will be any players available to be drafted at that point...if Peter's coverage of the 2012 NFL Draft is accurate of course.
Two headlines of the morning. Can't figure out which I like more,
Fortunately, MMQB is approximately 194 pages long. So there is time to fit both headlines in, as well as a little bit of whining about how difficult traveling around the United States is, with a little bit of inaccurate and annoying musings on the current state of the Red Sox.
New Orleans is getting really ticked off about the bounty sanctions on the Saints, and fans are responding with their wallets.
I'm not sure what happened is worth being ticked off about. Do Saints fans not like the harsh penalties, do Saints fans think the Saints shouldn't have been punished at all, or they just don't have much going on and feel the need to protest something? I can see how Saints fans would be angry at their favorite team, but to act as if an injustice has been done to the Saints? I don't see that.
The Eagles are winging their way to Texas to work out Ryan Tannehill today. Hmmmm.
An NFL team is working out a player they may or may not have interest in...has this ever happened before? Hmmmmmmm.
Jimmy Buffett did a concert last night on the waterfront in New Orleans. He wore a "Free Sean Payton'' T-shirt.
"In the most awkward moment of the night, Buffett then asked the audience if it wouldn't easier just to play his CD's through the loudspeaker so he could go home and count his cash, rather than forcing him to play music as the audience drunkenly attempts to pretend they aren't 60 years old and ignorant to the fact all of the good years of their life have passed them by. Buffett then referred to the audience as 'useless sheep' and started selling his licensed apparel with a 200% markup on the already 300% marked up price...naturally his apparel sold out in 20 minutes."
He dedicated his first song to his friend and Saints head coach Payton: "Sitting Here in Limbo."
Then Buffett opened up a mediocre coffee house in the New Orleans area that sold his mediocre beer inside his mediocre restaurant. He charges a cover charge of $20 for anyone to enter the coffee house...naturally it is packed every morning at 6am.
There is a town lots of New Orleans-area residents go to when they want to fish, Delacroix, La. It was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina.
The fact the area was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina doesn't mean the residents of that area can go around acting like idiots. So this information is irrelevant to me. If anything, the fact this area was hit hard by Hurricane Katrina should give this area more perspective on what a real tragedy looks like...and the real tragedy doesn't look like Sean Payton being suspended from coaching for a year.
Payton and the Saints were in the wrong concerning the bounty scandal. Deal with the punishment and quit crying about it. Get a community movement together for something that actually fucking matters, don't rally together so some rich white guy who doesn't even need to work over the next year can make a few more million dollars this year as the head coach of an NFL team.
As the cars got closer, the drivers could see she was selling "Free Sean Payton'' T-shirts.
He isn't incarcerated. This is lunacy. Why not rally around and spend money on causes that really matter? Why act like Sean Payton is in the right on this issue? He's not even in the right. His team collected bounties on players and that was wrong to do. All of this occurred while Sean Payton was the head coach, so he is being punished. He isn't being jailed, he is living life better than 99.5% of the New Orleans residents and you are rallying around him with shirts that say "Free Sean Payton," as if he was wrongly convicted of a crime. The idiocy of an American mob can never be understated. Only in this country can we sell "Free Person X" shirts for a person who isn't convicted or suspected of a crime.
What's funny is Peter has spent two MMQB's over the last month wishing he could make political statements in his MMQB. Here's a chance to make a statement involving sports and he reports this story without any obvious comment. Well, Peter is making a subtle comment by focusing on those who think Payton's suspension is unduly harsh in MMQB.
Outside the Superdome Sunday afternoon, about 30 locals gathered to protest NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's year-long suspension of Payton. One carried a sign reading, "Go to hell Goodell."
They are so quirky, those New Orleans people. By the way, Goodell says "you're welcome" for helping convince Tom Benson to not move away from New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Benson wanted to get the hell out of New Orleans after Katrina hit and Goodell/Tagliabue convinced him not to do this. You could be an NFL-less city or cheer for the Los Angeles Saints. That look of non-gratitude means so much to Goodell.
Several wore T-shirts that read: "Quit hatin' on my boy Payton."
The world is against you. There should be no repercussions for placing bounties on and trying to intentionally injure opposing players.
The Saints had two $100,000-plus suites available for the 2012 season as of the middle of March. Within 24 hours after the league's sanctions of the Saints were announced, both suites were sold. In addition, the Saints ticket office, in the three days after the sanctions were announced, had more than 150 callers asking to buy season tickets, with most saying they were doing it to show support for the team in the wake of the league's sanctions.
It is good to see it takes a bad cause to get the community to rally around the Saints.
There's a groundswell of anger in New Orleans, from what I can tell.
Anger at....who? The Saints did the crime. The punishment was harsh, but the Saints did the crime. Why should they not be punished? Are the idiotic Saints fans saying NOTHING should be done by the NFL? Or is it Sean Payton who they thinks deserves a pass? After all, this is America, you should pretty much be able to make any decision and never have to face any repercussions of that decision.
But I know New Orleans. It's not going to go away,
Peter "knows" New Orleans. He knows the entire city.
The Super Bowl is in New Orleans this season. Remember the booing Goodell got at the NFL Draft last year? That could sound charitable compared to the reception he could hear in New Orleans during Super Bowl week.
I am sure the sound of morons booing him while greatly hurt Goodell's feelings. Speaking of feelings, I have a feeling the Saints fans would have thought differently of the bounties if their precious Saint Brees had gotten hurt by a team who placed a bounty on his angelic head. No matter though. I'd love to hear suggestions from these "Free Sean Payton" folks on what an appropriate punishment should be.
Fact is, this is the time of year -- 24 days before Round 1 -- when teams buzz from town to town to get their drafting ducks in a row. The Eagles working out Tannehill could just be Philly doing its due diligence on a good player. That's what it probably is. But with the Eagles and quarterbacks, you never know. It could be more.
It very well could. I don't know why the Eagles wouldn't sign Mike Vick to a $100 million contract and then draft his replacement less than a year later. It makes sense to me. The Eagles certainly don't have any offensive line or linebacker needs that's for sure.
More from Tannehill shortly. Now for the remnants of the NFL meetings, and looking ahead to the Kiperization of our lives over the next three-plus weeks:
"Kiperization" means "talking about Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III and ignoring most of the other players in the 2012 NFL Draft."
1. If Roger Goodell is talking about changing the culture of the league, he should start with some NFL Network programming.
It's been very clear from the beginning that Peter King thinks the punishment on the Saints and Payton is excessive. He hasn't really told any stories of people who support the suspension or punishments. I feel like I need to mention this.
Number five on the list was a linebacker from the '50s, Hardy Brown, who played the prime of his career with the 49ers. A thin, 6-foot Texan, Brown perfected nailing blockers and ballcarriers in the open field with shoulder shots, knocking out more than his share in a 10-season career. Brown was shown making several brutal shots -- legal, but brutal -- and then he appeared on camera. Very matter-of-factly in the NFL Network piece (produced by NFL Films), he talked about the Rams putting a $500 bounty on him.
The segment wasn't quite glorifying the bounty aspect. But Brown told the story with a bit of a smirk, as though he was reveling in it.
How is this different from Peter King talking to Brett Favre about the bounty on his head during the 2009 NFC Championship Game? I'm not saying NFL Network shouldn't pull this segment, but Brown was the victim of the bounty, not the perpetrator of the bounty.
If I'm the Saints, I'm searching YouTube today for the Brown segment, and I'm showing it when I appeal the league's sanctions.
What exactly would this prove? Should Roger Goodell suspend a 75 year old man for putting a bounty on Hardy Brown? Goodell is aiming to CHANGE the culture of football. He has stated this quite a few times. So Goodell is already acknowledging the bounty culture is present and needs to be changed. Therefore this video would provide no supporting evidence for the Saints to get the appeal approved because it would be a part of the bounty program that Goodell is trying to change.
Wait -- I found it.
Seriously Peter, you do realize you can edit MMQB?
As usual, Peter is letting his high regard for Sean Payton get in the way of his reporting. Peter can not like the suspensions and think they are too harsh, that's his right. But, Peter is trying to give the Saints talking points on how to beat the suspension and is highlighting the opposing viewpoint without talking to anyone who thinks the punishment was just. I'm not asking it to be fair and balanced, just say you like Sean Payton and think the punishment is too harsh because you have a personal interest in the case.
But maybe Goodell could be persuaded to soften the team punishment, given two factors: Williams doesn't work there anymore
Williams left on his own accord and the reasoning didn't have anything to do with the bounty scandal. I'm not sure how three years of bounties can be mitigated by the offending coach taking a new job for reasons that don't have to do with the bounty scandal. The bounties still occurred and Payton still did nothing about them. That doesn't change when Williams moves on to coach the Rams.
I read the item Sunday on ProFootballTalk.com, saying in essence that the coaches on the staff wouldn't take kindly to an interloper who doesn't know the team, and I don't doubt it's true. But this is a unique situation in pro football history. I'd be stunned if defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, the only non-sanctioned staffer who's been an NFL head coach before, didn't accept Parcells openly.
I'd be glad for the Saints to hire Bill Parcells for just one year. The Saints are in my favorite team's division and Parcells coaching the Saints doesn't concern me at all. He's 71 years old and every player would know he is a short-timer.
Parcells history interlude:
Remembering when Parcells quit, or said he was done, is always a fun thing when he seems to be taking the whistle and clipboard out of the closet to coach again. Going back in history four times:
Bill Parcells is like any other coach in that he is a liar. He consistently lies about if he will coach again and his interest in coaching. If Parcells comes close to almost coaching the Saints, this would be the 3rd NFC South team he has flirted with coaching and then eventually turned down. This lying doesn't make him a bad person, it makes him a head coach.Noted NFL Films analyst Greg Cosell says Tannehill is a more accurate passer on the run than Andrew Luck or Robert Griffin III, which is something to say for a guy who played wide receiver for two-plus seasons while waiting for the quarterback job to be his in 2010.
Oh Peter, with your factually incorrect statements. Ryan Tannehill didn't wait for the quarterback job to be his in 2010. Jerrod Johnson started the year off as the starting quarterback and Tannehill got the job because after Johnson played poorly in his seven starts. So Tannehill didn't wait for the job to be his, he got the job because Johnson played badly.
7. Bill Belichick is showing Greg Schiano the ropes.
I wondered the other day, when Belichick retires, if Schiano is the kind of guy he'd recommend to be his successor as Patriots coach. You never know what the future could bring.
Do you mind if Schiano coaches a few years in Tampa Bay and proves to be a competent NFL head coach first before deciding he is Belchick's successor?
8. Stephen Ross is not backing down.
Unbelievably, Stephen Ross has his own spin for why the Dolphins have missed out on players and coaches over the last couple of years.
Ross told me he never offered his coach job to Jim Harbaugh last year
Because Harbaugh probably wouldn't have accepted the job compared to the 49ers job.
and the Dolphins didn't have the comfort level and familiarity with Peyton Manning that Denver had with him.
Which is why Manning didn't want to play in Miami.
He also said he thinks Jeff Ireland "has done a terrific job and is a great talent evaluator,''
So the owner of an NFL team is publicly supporting his General Manager? Has this ever happened before? This is clearly a sign there are no problems in the Dolphins organization even though reality hasn't always agreed with this assessment of Ireland having done a terrific job as Dolphins GM.
As one GM told me during the meetings: "Just watch it ruin Mark Sanchez. He can't take the booing as it is. With Tebow subbing for him every game and the pressure to get the ball to Santonio Holmes, Sanchez will crack.''
Personally, I am excited to watch it all fall apart. The dumbest column I have read in a while (and I can't remember where I read it) said that Ex-QB Broncosmania was over once the Broncos signed Peyton Manning. With QB Jets in New York, QB Broncosmania is just getting started.
I disagree, vehemently. I don't know if Tebow's ever going to be a starting quarterback in the league for five or six years, or for any length of time. But I do know he can be an asset to a winning team. And if Sanchez can't take the pressure, that's tough. He should play somewhere else.
So you...do agree in a way? The GM wasn't saying it wouldn't work, he was saying Sanchez would crack at the pressure. Peter also said if Sanchez can't take the pressure he should go somewhere else. So the GM is saying Sanchez will crack and Peter is saying if Sanchez cracks he should go play for a different team. It's not the same thing, but these are diametrically opposing viewpoints.
I thought Tebow was going to be used five to eight snaps a game, but listening to coach Rex Ryan in Florida, he sounds like he's open to more -- up to 20 -- with the field spread, near the goal line, on two-point conversions, and maybe even using Tebow as the personal protector on the punt team. Having a defense in alert mode for Tebow will be a benefit no matter how accurate he is. Or isn't.
But the issue is, and I know Peter isn't stupid so he has to be willfully ignoring this point, is if Sanchez cracks under the pressure of having QB Jets behind him, then the entire Jets offense will run around QB Jets' skills. THAT is the problem. Having QB Jets as the backup behind a shaky starter is essentially the Jets saying they can live with QB Jets as the starting quarterback.
On Friday night, Gruden's session with Andrew Luck was on, and he challenged Luck for making a dumb read on a throw against USC -- on Green Right Slot Spider 3 Y Banana, one of Luck's favorite plays and one that he just got greedy on. He should have checked down to the fullback, Gruden was saying, but instead threw to his right to the wideout, with the matador cornerback for USC picking it off and taking it all the way back for a go-ahead touchdown late in the fourth quarter
Luck accepted why he should be happy to take the short gains instead of the big risks that backfire. "You can't go broke taking a profit,'' Luck said to Gruden.
Thanks Matt Ryan! Why take a risk when you can check down? Why throw a pass further than five yards pass the line of scrimmage and take a risk?
I'm not for a quarterback taking risks, but making constant check downs because you are afraid to make a mistake isn't what great quarterbacks do. Great quarterbacks don't take this risk in the fourth quarter of a close game either, so if Luck wants to be great then he needs to learn the time and place to take a risk. Otherwise, the defense will let him check down all game and I'm not sure how effective the offense will be.
Then Peter editorializes again by using a quote from DeMaurice Smith protesting the flow of information from the commissioner's office about the bounty scandal. It's so abundantly clear that Peter thinks the punishment is overly harsh and I can't help but think he wouldn't feel this way if he didn't personally like Sean Payton.
"Anything short of reverence is subject to ridicule.''
-- Jerry Tipton, longtime Kentucky Wildcats beat writer, on the criticism he has endured covering the team, in a New York Times profile over the weekend.
Kentucky fans, they be so crazy!Why the Buffalo Bills are excited, now that Mario Williams is on the team:
New season tickets sold in the first two days after Mario Williams signed this month: 1,600.
New season tickets sold in the first seven days after Drew Bledsoe was acquired in 2002: 1,273.
Let's also remember when Bledsoe was acquired in 2002 there were probably fewer new season tickets to be sold since the Bills had made the playoffs all but four years since 1988. I'm not saying this statistic means nothing, but since the Bills haven't made the playoffs since 1999 I am guessing there are more new season tickets available to be sold in 2012 than there were in 2002.Just thinking: Jack Elway worked with Oliver Luck. John Elway played for Stanford. Jack Elway coached Stanford. Andrew Luck played for Stanford. John Elway went to work for the Broncos, and as his first major act running the football operations, signed Peyton Manning in free agency after Manning was made expendable by the prospect of Indianapolis drafting Andrew Luck. That's one strange circle of life.
"It's the wheel of fortune, it's the leap of faith, it's the band of hope, til we find our place."
By the way, having random baby lions hanging around the studio while animation is being drawn is a bad idea. I don't care how cute the baby lions are.
Two hours down the road from Sanford, Fla., site of the Trayvon Martin killing that has inflamed the nation, I sat down for a relaxing exhibition game in Port St. Lucie the other day. On the scoreboard before the game was an ad, with a voiceover by the PA announcer, for a shooting range and gun shop near the stadium.
A fan (presumably a local person, though he never said) who I'd been talking with a couple of seats away noticed me listening to the ad -- with nine soundproof areas in which to practice shooting -- and said, "You're not in New York anymore, Peter.''
Yes, not every state can have gun crime like The District of Columbia. I'm pretty sure The District of Columbia is really close to Florida, as is Missouri, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Delaware...six other states that round out the Top 10 in firearm murders per 100,000 people in a state.
5. I think the reason Greg Cosell is so good analyzing the NFL -- whether on talk shows, TV, writing or Twitter -- is he often makes you think. As with this tweet over the weekend about the value of running backs: "No question lot of late rd/FA RB have been successful. Inarguable. Question then becomes where do you draft a RB, regardless of talent?''
In other words, is Trent Richardson at four too high? Is Richardson at 34 too high? Cosell makes you think, and that's a good thing.
If we look at the list of running backs who have been in the Top 10 of the NFL in rushing yards gained every year since 2008, it shows UDFA/late round running backs have been successful, but early round running backs have been more successful. Here are the number of running backs in the Top 10 of the NFL in rushing yards gained every year since 2008:2011: Five 1st or 2nd round picks.
2010: Four 1st or 2nd round picks.
2009: Seven 1st or 2nd round picks.
2008: Seven 1st or 2nd round picks.
In that span, five times a 6th/7th/UDFA has been in the Top 10 in rushing yards in a season. So while Cosell makes me think, he also needs to understand a little research works wonders. If a team wants an impact running back, I think the earlier rounds are the place to find this.
c. Are you seriously telling me Danny Ainge tried to trade Rajon Rondo? What a ballplayer. Rondo being Rondo is the only way the Celtics have a chance in the playoffs. What a performance Sunday against the Heat.
Yes, Ainge tried to trade Rondo earlier in the year because he is a great player and if the Celtics were rebuilding then Rondo is the guy who get the most value back in a trade.
f. The problem with the women's game, to me, is that all four top seeds made it to the Final Four. Women's basketball needs a George Mason or Butler to happen. It's not March Madness in women's basketball. It's March Regularity.
Incorrect in my opinion. Regardless of what seeds make the women's college basketball Final Four, as long as the tournament takes place the same time as the men's tournament and it continues to feature women's basketball (which is a sport America has consistently shown is not being accepted as a preferred sport), it will not ever be as popular as the men's NCAA Tournament.
k. Beernerdness: As long as we've talked about Jimmy Buffett in this column, I raised a couple of cups of LandShark Lager while in Florida. It could have a little more taste, but it's better than Bud.
"It's better than Bud." I just pissed in a cup and drank it. My piss is better than Bud also. That doesn't say much.
Somewhere Jimmy Buffett is laughing that he just sold another bottle of his mediocre beer...Sean Payton is probably playing the bongos as Buffett laughs.
Monday, April 2, 2012
0 comments 2012 MLB Preview
A few years ago, I did complete previews of every MLB team where I previewed each team's offense and defense. I believe I did three or four teams at a time in a post. It was fun, but also a lot of work, so I've opted to not do that this year. I'm lazy. I can be wrong without writing 9-10 posts explaining in great detail just how wrong I am. So I figured I would embarrass myself yet again this year and preview the 2012 season and try to pick how each division and how the playoffs will go. Because I have a National League AND East Coast Bias, let's start with the NL East.
NL East
Philadelphia Phillies (94-68): I believe I chose the Braves to win this division last year. For the time being, I'm going to stick with the Phillies to win the NL East. Though I do worry about their bullpen and how long Ryan Howard will be out, I still think its their division to lose. They still have three top pitchers and with Vance Worley's emergence the offense could handle a small step back. Plus, Hunter Pence will be an annoying terror this year. A Top-3 MVP vote count isn't out of the question for him.
Atlanta Braves (88-74): I shudder to put them here and probably will regret it. I have real questions about their ability to hit since they haven't made too personnel changes and it seems like 1-2 of their relievers are due for Tommy John surgery due to the workload they had last year. I put them here because I believe Heyward, Uggla, and Prado will increase their level of play and hit and the pitching stays steady. If that doesn't happen, I can see a 4th place finish easily.
Washington Nationals (84-78): I really like this Nationals team. I like their starting pitching and think it has really improved since last year. Gonzalez was a nice pickup and Strasburg is back from injury. My issue lies in the fact I don't like the batters up the middle. Desmond, Espinosa, and Bernadina are low OBP guys who I'm not sure will get on-base enough to score runs. Even with Jayson Werth remembering how to hit I think this team is a year away.
Miami Marlins (81-81): I'm not buying. Call me a contrarian or in denial. I don't believe Reyes can stay healthy all year, Buerhle is not a #2 starter, and behind (injury-prone) Josh Johnson is Ricky Nolasco and Carlos Zambrano...guys who are question marks (Zambrano) or a bit overrated (Nolasco). Outside of Heath Bell, I'm not convinced by the bullpen either. This team is better, but the competition in the division has gotten better also.
New York Mets (70-92): If you had told me in 2001 I would be feeling bad for the New York Mets then I would call you crazy. I do feel bad for them. I really like Davis, Duda, Thole and Ruben Tejada. I don't know if that is the core for the future, but they aren't bad players. That counts for something, right? I'm not sure the pitching is going to be good spots 1-12 and I don't trust Jason Bay or David Wright to make an impact...okay, maybe I trust Wright more than Bay. Either way, even if Johan Santana is able to come back this year and pitch full time, the Mets will still struggle.
NL Central
St. Louis Cardinals (87-75): I know. What am I smoking? There's no way the Cardinals win the division this year. This is a hard division to call and there are reasons for me to dislike every team. I think despite the loss of Pujols the general mediocrity of this division will allow the Cardinals to win the division. I like the starting pitching with Wainwright, Garcia, Lohse (and whatever Carpenter can provide) and as long as Lance Berkman replicates last year (fat chance) and Carlos Beltran stays healthy (and fatter chance) they will win the division. So I'm basing my opinion on two fat chances and Allen Craig coming back healthy in May.
Cincinnati Reds (86-76): This is the popular team to pick in this division. So why am I not picking them? I don't think Mat Latos will be the kind of pitcher he was in San Diego, I don't like their overall starting pitching depth and the loss of Ryan Madsen concerns me for the bullpen. Obviously Joey Votto is an MVP candidate, but this is a Reds team I see playing better in the playoffs than during the season. Whatever that means. They just have to make the playoffs first.
Milwaukee Brewers (83-79): Even if Ryan Braun plays like he did last year, why would teams even pitch to him? Aramis Ramirez is fading, Matt Gamel never was, Alex Gonzalez can't hit a baseball pitched to him not down the middle of the plate, Rickie Weeks will get hurt...so that leaves Corey Hart. So I think this season comes down to how Corey Hart plays. I love the pitching with Marcum, Greinke, and Gallardo. I'm not sure this is a team that can withstand the loss of Prince Fielder offensively though.
Pittsburgh Pirates (78-84): Fourth place! That's not last place! The Pirates pitching doesn't look very impressive, but fortunately they play the Astros and Cubs many times this year. I look for Pedro Alvarez to get his shit together, Jose Tabata to improve, and Andrew McCutchen to start outplaying his contract less than a few months after it was signed. Yes, Eric Bedard is the opening day starter, but he probably won't be the best pitcher on the staff. That will probably be Jeff Karstens.
Chicago Cubs (75-87): This isn't the year the Cubs are supposed to compete. They are flushing all the shit down the toilet before they start cleaning the toilet (bathroom analogy!). This year is about finding out who is going to be on this team three years from now. The starting pitching isn't non-impressive, but I look for Carlos Marmol to be traded and Starlin Castro will continue to improve. Again, this isn't about this year, but about finding out what some of these players can do. Can Ian Stewart be Bill Mueller? Is Bryan LaHair just like Kevin Millar (no)? Probably not, but it's not a bad short-term plan and as bad as rebuilding sucks, it is the best move.
Houston Astros (60-102): This is a terrible team and I don't quite see much hope. The team and the farm system are rebuilding. I'm not sure why the Astros are wasting Brett Myers in the bullpen to close out games that won't need being closed out. There's not much to say other than even if the pitching staff produced, this team is made up of overpaid players, upcoming prospects, past their prime prospects, and Jed Lowrie.
NL West
Arizona Diamondbacks (91-71): I like the trade for Trevor Cahill. That trade really shored up the rotation for the Diamondbacks. Justin Upton is the kind of player who could carry a team, but he hopefully won't have to with Jason Kubel and Paul Goldschmidt in the lineup. I don't love any of the other teams in the division, but I think this is the best team in the division with the second-best starting pitching. Kennedy/Cahill/Hudson match up well with opposing teams and if the Diamondbacks get anything from Stephen Drew it is a plus.
Colorado Rockies (89-73): I'm taking a leap with the Rockies' record because I don't love the Rockies starting pitching. I really like the outfield, even if Dexter Fowler doesn't become the player we all thought he may be. Still, Cuddyer was a good and versatile addition to the outfield. I think of this as a good hitting Rockies team with just enough pitching to take one of the Wild Card spots.
San Francisco Giants (84-78): Everyone loves the Giants pitching. I just can't pick a team that starts an outfield of Melky Cabrera, Nate Schierholtz and Angel Pagan to win the division. Even with Buster Posey back, I don't trust Aubrey Huff to hit the ball well enough for the Giants to make the playoffs. I think the front office is doing the pitching staff an injustice by not giving them an offense that will score enough runs. Otherwise, that's a great pitching staff.
Los Angeles Dodgers (80-82): I don't hate the Dodgers. Don't tell T.J. Simers this. Clayton Kershaw is one of the best pitchers in baseball and Matt Kemp is one of the best hitters in baseball. Unfortunately, there are seven other players in the lineup every fifth day when Kershaw pitches and I don't think the Dodgers are strong enough in the infield (batting-wise) to make the playoffs. The rotation is very "blah" after Billingsley. Harang and Lilly are good pitchers, but not too much more. I look for T.J. Simers to enjoy the Dodgers lack of success.
San Diego Padres (71-91): Seems like they are rebuilding again. It's hard to say that though when their lineup seems to consist of guys who are guys who just aren't hitting as well as hoped at this point in their career and aren't exactly young guys. Yonder Alonso excepted of course. The starting pitching staff is all on the wrong side of 25, which doesn't sound like a big deal except for the fact these are supposed to be the prime years of their career and they aren't exactly pitching like they are in their prime. This team simply isn't good enough.
NL Playoffs
Stupid one game Wild Card playoff: Colorado over Atlanta
NLDS: Philadelphia over Colorado, Arizona over St. Louis
NLCS: Arizona over Philadelphia
Now for the American League...
AL East
New York Yankees (97-65): This is the easiest and hardest division to pick. The Blue Jays and Orioles probably aren't finishing higher than 4th. So that's easy to know. It's hard to guess how the other three teams will end up. The last time the Yankees made an effort to upgrade their pitching staff they won the World Series. I'm not comfortable going that far, but even given A-Rod's regression and Granderson probably not playing as well as he did last year, the Yankees have plenty of offense. Tex struggled in 2011 and he won't do that again in 2012.
Boston Red Sox (91-71): I'm high on the Red Sox. Sure their starting pitching seems to be a question mark, but they have the best hitter in the division, Adrian Gonzalez and I think Cody Ross will enjoy hitting in Fenway. The Red Sox can't replace Papelbon, it is impossible to find someone who as big of a douchebag as Paps is, but even harder to find as good of a closer. Still, I like the Bailey/Melancon combo. I'm buying on the Red Sox, even if the starting pitching is a bit unsettled.
Tampa Bay Rays (86-76): I'm not as high on the Rays. It took a complete collapse by the Red Sox to get the Rays in the playoffs last year and I'm not sure they are much better than they were last year. I am interested to see what Matt Joyce can do with 550 at-bats and interested to see Desmond Jennings play 150+ games. I feel weird not picking this team to win the division because up and down the roster I really like the Rays. I just think they are taking a one year step back, even with that tough starting pitching.
Toronto Blue Jays (83-79): Would it be possible for me to move Toronto to the NL Central and have the Blue Jays win the NL Central? I'd like to do that. They are a good team, but they are a few steps behind the Rays/Yankees/Red Sox at this point still. They have a solid "B-" team in a division full of "A's" and "B+'s." I'd feel better if I knew what they'd get from Colby Rasmus, Adam Lind, and Brandon Morrow. If anyone can predict the future and tell me what those guys will provide, I can make my prediction more accurate. They are a good team in a very good division.
Baltimore Orioles (72-90): Oh, the Orioles. They traded their most consistent starter for Jason Hammel and have strikeout kings Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis at the corners of the infield. Adam Jones' development has seemingly stalled and Matt Wieters could be in the same boat in one year. If I'm going to be technical about it, they don't have very good pitching at all. They have a staff of #4 and #5 guys and the fact half of their hitters can't make contact with the ball or get on-base at an average rate doesn't help things. But hey, last year they ruined the Red Sox season. That's something to hold onto for the next decade.
AL Central
Detroit Tigers (96-66): I liked the Tigers before they signed Prince Fielder. Now I really like them. If Max Scherzer and Rick Porcello pitch well this year then they are the team to beat in the American League. I expect Doug Fister to regress from how he pitched in Detroit last year, but Porcello should improve. The Tigers successfully got Brandon Inge to possibly not have 250 at-bats this year and that's a huge win. I do question whether Peralta can reproduce how he hit last year and whether Andy Dirks can be an everyday outfielder. Still, I'm feeling good about this team...even knowing Jose Valverde will blow at least one save this year.
Cleveland Indians (85-77): Hop on the bandwagon everyone! I like the Indians this year. Actually, I don't like the other teams in the division more, but still...those Indians...looking good. The Indians quietly got much better this offseason, especially in the starting pitching category. Lowe and Slowey aren't great, but they will give the Indians inning. I'm concerned about Jimenez pitching well. He has struggled since coming to Cleveland. Casey Kotchman was a good signing and Shin Soo-Choo is going to have a bounceback year. I like Jason Kipnis and I like that I like the Indians this year.
Kansas City Royals (81-81): The Royals are getting better. I'm a little surprised they are the 900th team to give Jeff Francoeur a permanent job in the outfield, but I guess there are worse options in the free agent market. There are maybe no other options with as high sense of self-worth as Francoeur has. The starting rotation isn't imposing, but I think the bullpen is pretty good, even without Soria. This team will at least hit well enough to go .500 this year, which is an improvement.
Minnesota Twins (75-87): I've never understood how the Twins won games with starters who projected to be #3 starters at-best. I don't have to wonder about that this year because they aren't going to win too many games. It's never good news when your two best hitters are complete question marks (Morneau/Mauer). I don't know if the Twins are going to hit the ball and that pitching staff still contains really average pitchers. If Mauer and Morneau can't come back to their old selves then Josh Willingham and Danny Valencia can't carry the offense.
Chicago White Sox (68-94): I can't decide how bad this team will be. I also can't decide if Robin Ventura is a genius or moron for wanting to bat Pierzynski 2nd in the batting order. I don't expect Adam Dunn to struggle this upcoming season like he did last season and I keep expecting Paul Konerko to drop in production...but that doesn't seem to be happening. I think the pitching staff is below average and I'm not even sure they can get anything from Jake Peavy at this point. There are too many question marks on this team for me to think they will win 70 games.
AL West
Los Angeles Angels (98-64): I think what scares me the most about this Angels team is their best/second-best outfielder isn't even going to probably start the year in the lineup. That's Mike Trout. Anybody think the Angels want a time machine to take the Vernon Wells trade back and sign a two-year gap guy in left field like Johnny Damon? I bet they do. This is the perfect situation for C.J. Wilson. He isn't a #2-quality starter, but he doesn't have to be on this pitching staff, but he still gets paid like a #2 starter. What's great is this Angels team added the best available bat, Albert Pujols, but their pitching can win them games even if the Angels lineup isn't hitting. I think the Angels win the division. I'm just excited to see Mike Trout play in all honesty.
Texas Rangers (93-69): The Rangers have sort of been forgotten in all the talk about Pujols and the Angels. This is still a very good team. Neftali Feliz has the stuff to be a starter and was originally a starter in the minors, so I'm not overly concerned for him making the transition. The best part is the Rangers could always move Ogando back to the rotation and have an awe-inspiring bullpen if Feliz doesn't work out. I'm just surprised Michael Young didn't demand a trade when the Rangers signed Yu Darvish. Demanding a trade is his knee-jerk reaction to any move the Rangers make. This team will hit very well and I think the starting pitching is above average, but not great.
Seattle Mariners (77-85): I get the Montero-Pineida trade more than some experts do. The Mariners wanted a quality young hitter and they knew they would have to give up a quality player in order to get a quality young hitter. I'm not as concerned about the fact Montero doesn't play the field well. Would it have been a better trade if Montero played catcher? Wouldn't that ultimately lead to the whole "When will the Mariners move Montero from catcher to preserve his health" discussion? So he can't play the field well, his job will be to hit anyway. The Mariners still don't have very good hitting up and down the lineup, but I am a bit warmed up to their pitching staff. From what I've read about Hector Noesi and Blake Beavan (the Mariner's #4/#5 starters) they will succeed in Safeco Park. I think the Mariners may be improving.
Oakland A's (65-97): The A's, on the other hand, are not improving. They spent the late Fall and Winter ridding themselves of good pitching (Gio Gonzalez/Trevor Cahill). As much of a ceiling Cespedes is supposed to have, I don't see where the offense is coming from. The A's won't have enough starting pitching to come close to competing in this division and I think it will take another year or two before the A's rebuilding plan (again) starts to allow them to compete again.
AL Playoffs
Stupid One Game Wild Card Playoff: Boston over Texas
ALDS: Boston over Los Angeles, Detroit over New York
ALCS: Detroit over Boston
World Series: Detroit over Arizona
There we go. Feel free to call me an idiot.
NL East
Philadelphia Phillies (94-68): I believe I chose the Braves to win this division last year. For the time being, I'm going to stick with the Phillies to win the NL East. Though I do worry about their bullpen and how long Ryan Howard will be out, I still think its their division to lose. They still have three top pitchers and with Vance Worley's emergence the offense could handle a small step back. Plus, Hunter Pence will be an annoying terror this year. A Top-3 MVP vote count isn't out of the question for him.
Atlanta Braves (88-74): I shudder to put them here and probably will regret it. I have real questions about their ability to hit since they haven't made too personnel changes and it seems like 1-2 of their relievers are due for Tommy John surgery due to the workload they had last year. I put them here because I believe Heyward, Uggla, and Prado will increase their level of play and hit and the pitching stays steady. If that doesn't happen, I can see a 4th place finish easily.
Washington Nationals (84-78): I really like this Nationals team. I like their starting pitching and think it has really improved since last year. Gonzalez was a nice pickup and Strasburg is back from injury. My issue lies in the fact I don't like the batters up the middle. Desmond, Espinosa, and Bernadina are low OBP guys who I'm not sure will get on-base enough to score runs. Even with Jayson Werth remembering how to hit I think this team is a year away.
Miami Marlins (81-81): I'm not buying. Call me a contrarian or in denial. I don't believe Reyes can stay healthy all year, Buerhle is not a #2 starter, and behind (injury-prone) Josh Johnson is Ricky Nolasco and Carlos Zambrano...guys who are question marks (Zambrano) or a bit overrated (Nolasco). Outside of Heath Bell, I'm not convinced by the bullpen either. This team is better, but the competition in the division has gotten better also.
New York Mets (70-92): If you had told me in 2001 I would be feeling bad for the New York Mets then I would call you crazy. I do feel bad for them. I really like Davis, Duda, Thole and Ruben Tejada. I don't know if that is the core for the future, but they aren't bad players. That counts for something, right? I'm not sure the pitching is going to be good spots 1-12 and I don't trust Jason Bay or David Wright to make an impact...okay, maybe I trust Wright more than Bay. Either way, even if Johan Santana is able to come back this year and pitch full time, the Mets will still struggle.
NL Central
St. Louis Cardinals (87-75): I know. What am I smoking? There's no way the Cardinals win the division this year. This is a hard division to call and there are reasons for me to dislike every team. I think despite the loss of Pujols the general mediocrity of this division will allow the Cardinals to win the division. I like the starting pitching with Wainwright, Garcia, Lohse (and whatever Carpenter can provide) and as long as Lance Berkman replicates last year (fat chance) and Carlos Beltran stays healthy (and fatter chance) they will win the division. So I'm basing my opinion on two fat chances and Allen Craig coming back healthy in May.
Cincinnati Reds (86-76): This is the popular team to pick in this division. So why am I not picking them? I don't think Mat Latos will be the kind of pitcher he was in San Diego, I don't like their overall starting pitching depth and the loss of Ryan Madsen concerns me for the bullpen. Obviously Joey Votto is an MVP candidate, but this is a Reds team I see playing better in the playoffs than during the season. Whatever that means. They just have to make the playoffs first.
Milwaukee Brewers (83-79): Even if Ryan Braun plays like he did last year, why would teams even pitch to him? Aramis Ramirez is fading, Matt Gamel never was, Alex Gonzalez can't hit a baseball pitched to him not down the middle of the plate, Rickie Weeks will get hurt...so that leaves Corey Hart. So I think this season comes down to how Corey Hart plays. I love the pitching with Marcum, Greinke, and Gallardo. I'm not sure this is a team that can withstand the loss of Prince Fielder offensively though.
Pittsburgh Pirates (78-84): Fourth place! That's not last place! The Pirates pitching doesn't look very impressive, but fortunately they play the Astros and Cubs many times this year. I look for Pedro Alvarez to get his shit together, Jose Tabata to improve, and Andrew McCutchen to start outplaying his contract less than a few months after it was signed. Yes, Eric Bedard is the opening day starter, but he probably won't be the best pitcher on the staff. That will probably be Jeff Karstens.
Chicago Cubs (75-87): This isn't the year the Cubs are supposed to compete. They are flushing all the shit down the toilet before they start cleaning the toilet (bathroom analogy!). This year is about finding out who is going to be on this team three years from now. The starting pitching isn't non-impressive, but I look for Carlos Marmol to be traded and Starlin Castro will continue to improve. Again, this isn't about this year, but about finding out what some of these players can do. Can Ian Stewart be Bill Mueller? Is Bryan LaHair just like Kevin Millar (no)? Probably not, but it's not a bad short-term plan and as bad as rebuilding sucks, it is the best move.
Houston Astros (60-102): This is a terrible team and I don't quite see much hope. The team and the farm system are rebuilding. I'm not sure why the Astros are wasting Brett Myers in the bullpen to close out games that won't need being closed out. There's not much to say other than even if the pitching staff produced, this team is made up of overpaid players, upcoming prospects, past their prime prospects, and Jed Lowrie.
NL West
Arizona Diamondbacks (91-71): I like the trade for Trevor Cahill. That trade really shored up the rotation for the Diamondbacks. Justin Upton is the kind of player who could carry a team, but he hopefully won't have to with Jason Kubel and Paul Goldschmidt in the lineup. I don't love any of the other teams in the division, but I think this is the best team in the division with the second-best starting pitching. Kennedy/Cahill/Hudson match up well with opposing teams and if the Diamondbacks get anything from Stephen Drew it is a plus.
Colorado Rockies (89-73): I'm taking a leap with the Rockies' record because I don't love the Rockies starting pitching. I really like the outfield, even if Dexter Fowler doesn't become the player we all thought he may be. Still, Cuddyer was a good and versatile addition to the outfield. I think of this as a good hitting Rockies team with just enough pitching to take one of the Wild Card spots.
San Francisco Giants (84-78): Everyone loves the Giants pitching. I just can't pick a team that starts an outfield of Melky Cabrera, Nate Schierholtz and Angel Pagan to win the division. Even with Buster Posey back, I don't trust Aubrey Huff to hit the ball well enough for the Giants to make the playoffs. I think the front office is doing the pitching staff an injustice by not giving them an offense that will score enough runs. Otherwise, that's a great pitching staff.
Los Angeles Dodgers (80-82): I don't hate the Dodgers. Don't tell T.J. Simers this. Clayton Kershaw is one of the best pitchers in baseball and Matt Kemp is one of the best hitters in baseball. Unfortunately, there are seven other players in the lineup every fifth day when Kershaw pitches and I don't think the Dodgers are strong enough in the infield (batting-wise) to make the playoffs. The rotation is very "blah" after Billingsley. Harang and Lilly are good pitchers, but not too much more. I look for T.J. Simers to enjoy the Dodgers lack of success.
San Diego Padres (71-91): Seems like they are rebuilding again. It's hard to say that though when their lineup seems to consist of guys who are guys who just aren't hitting as well as hoped at this point in their career and aren't exactly young guys. Yonder Alonso excepted of course. The starting pitching staff is all on the wrong side of 25, which doesn't sound like a big deal except for the fact these are supposed to be the prime years of their career and they aren't exactly pitching like they are in their prime. This team simply isn't good enough.
NL Playoffs
Stupid one game Wild Card playoff: Colorado over Atlanta
NLDS: Philadelphia over Colorado, Arizona over St. Louis
NLCS: Arizona over Philadelphia
Now for the American League...
AL East
New York Yankees (97-65): This is the easiest and hardest division to pick. The Blue Jays and Orioles probably aren't finishing higher than 4th. So that's easy to know. It's hard to guess how the other three teams will end up. The last time the Yankees made an effort to upgrade their pitching staff they won the World Series. I'm not comfortable going that far, but even given A-Rod's regression and Granderson probably not playing as well as he did last year, the Yankees have plenty of offense. Tex struggled in 2011 and he won't do that again in 2012.
Boston Red Sox (91-71): I'm high on the Red Sox. Sure their starting pitching seems to be a question mark, but they have the best hitter in the division, Adrian Gonzalez and I think Cody Ross will enjoy hitting in Fenway. The Red Sox can't replace Papelbon, it is impossible to find someone who as big of a douchebag as Paps is, but even harder to find as good of a closer. Still, I like the Bailey/Melancon combo. I'm buying on the Red Sox, even if the starting pitching is a bit unsettled.
Tampa Bay Rays (86-76): I'm not as high on the Rays. It took a complete collapse by the Red Sox to get the Rays in the playoffs last year and I'm not sure they are much better than they were last year. I am interested to see what Matt Joyce can do with 550 at-bats and interested to see Desmond Jennings play 150+ games. I feel weird not picking this team to win the division because up and down the roster I really like the Rays. I just think they are taking a one year step back, even with that tough starting pitching.
Toronto Blue Jays (83-79): Would it be possible for me to move Toronto to the NL Central and have the Blue Jays win the NL Central? I'd like to do that. They are a good team, but they are a few steps behind the Rays/Yankees/Red Sox at this point still. They have a solid "B-" team in a division full of "A's" and "B+'s." I'd feel better if I knew what they'd get from Colby Rasmus, Adam Lind, and Brandon Morrow. If anyone can predict the future and tell me what those guys will provide, I can make my prediction more accurate. They are a good team in a very good division.
Baltimore Orioles (72-90): Oh, the Orioles. They traded their most consistent starter for Jason Hammel and have strikeout kings Mark Reynolds and Chris Davis at the corners of the infield. Adam Jones' development has seemingly stalled and Matt Wieters could be in the same boat in one year. If I'm going to be technical about it, they don't have very good pitching at all. They have a staff of #4 and #5 guys and the fact half of their hitters can't make contact with the ball or get on-base at an average rate doesn't help things. But hey, last year they ruined the Red Sox season. That's something to hold onto for the next decade.
AL Central
Detroit Tigers (96-66): I liked the Tigers before they signed Prince Fielder. Now I really like them. If Max Scherzer and Rick Porcello pitch well this year then they are the team to beat in the American League. I expect Doug Fister to regress from how he pitched in Detroit last year, but Porcello should improve. The Tigers successfully got Brandon Inge to possibly not have 250 at-bats this year and that's a huge win. I do question whether Peralta can reproduce how he hit last year and whether Andy Dirks can be an everyday outfielder. Still, I'm feeling good about this team...even knowing Jose Valverde will blow at least one save this year.
Cleveland Indians (85-77): Hop on the bandwagon everyone! I like the Indians this year. Actually, I don't like the other teams in the division more, but still...those Indians...looking good. The Indians quietly got much better this offseason, especially in the starting pitching category. Lowe and Slowey aren't great, but they will give the Indians inning. I'm concerned about Jimenez pitching well. He has struggled since coming to Cleveland. Casey Kotchman was a good signing and Shin Soo-Choo is going to have a bounceback year. I like Jason Kipnis and I like that I like the Indians this year.
Kansas City Royals (81-81): The Royals are getting better. I'm a little surprised they are the 900th team to give Jeff Francoeur a permanent job in the outfield, but I guess there are worse options in the free agent market. There are maybe no other options with as high sense of self-worth as Francoeur has. The starting rotation isn't imposing, but I think the bullpen is pretty good, even without Soria. This team will at least hit well enough to go .500 this year, which is an improvement.
Minnesota Twins (75-87): I've never understood how the Twins won games with starters who projected to be #3 starters at-best. I don't have to wonder about that this year because they aren't going to win too many games. It's never good news when your two best hitters are complete question marks (Morneau/Mauer). I don't know if the Twins are going to hit the ball and that pitching staff still contains really average pitchers. If Mauer and Morneau can't come back to their old selves then Josh Willingham and Danny Valencia can't carry the offense.
Chicago White Sox (68-94): I can't decide how bad this team will be. I also can't decide if Robin Ventura is a genius or moron for wanting to bat Pierzynski 2nd in the batting order. I don't expect Adam Dunn to struggle this upcoming season like he did last season and I keep expecting Paul Konerko to drop in production...but that doesn't seem to be happening. I think the pitching staff is below average and I'm not even sure they can get anything from Jake Peavy at this point. There are too many question marks on this team for me to think they will win 70 games.
AL West
Los Angeles Angels (98-64): I think what scares me the most about this Angels team is their best/second-best outfielder isn't even going to probably start the year in the lineup. That's Mike Trout. Anybody think the Angels want a time machine to take the Vernon Wells trade back and sign a two-year gap guy in left field like Johnny Damon? I bet they do. This is the perfect situation for C.J. Wilson. He isn't a #2-quality starter, but he doesn't have to be on this pitching staff, but he still gets paid like a #2 starter. What's great is this Angels team added the best available bat, Albert Pujols, but their pitching can win them games even if the Angels lineup isn't hitting. I think the Angels win the division. I'm just excited to see Mike Trout play in all honesty.
Texas Rangers (93-69): The Rangers have sort of been forgotten in all the talk about Pujols and the Angels. This is still a very good team. Neftali Feliz has the stuff to be a starter and was originally a starter in the minors, so I'm not overly concerned for him making the transition. The best part is the Rangers could always move Ogando back to the rotation and have an awe-inspiring bullpen if Feliz doesn't work out. I'm just surprised Michael Young didn't demand a trade when the Rangers signed Yu Darvish. Demanding a trade is his knee-jerk reaction to any move the Rangers make. This team will hit very well and I think the starting pitching is above average, but not great.
Seattle Mariners (77-85): I get the Montero-Pineida trade more than some experts do. The Mariners wanted a quality young hitter and they knew they would have to give up a quality player in order to get a quality young hitter. I'm not as concerned about the fact Montero doesn't play the field well. Would it have been a better trade if Montero played catcher? Wouldn't that ultimately lead to the whole "When will the Mariners move Montero from catcher to preserve his health" discussion? So he can't play the field well, his job will be to hit anyway. The Mariners still don't have very good hitting up and down the lineup, but I am a bit warmed up to their pitching staff. From what I've read about Hector Noesi and Blake Beavan (the Mariner's #4/#5 starters) they will succeed in Safeco Park. I think the Mariners may be improving.
Oakland A's (65-97): The A's, on the other hand, are not improving. They spent the late Fall and Winter ridding themselves of good pitching (Gio Gonzalez/Trevor Cahill). As much of a ceiling Cespedes is supposed to have, I don't see where the offense is coming from. The A's won't have enough starting pitching to come close to competing in this division and I think it will take another year or two before the A's rebuilding plan (again) starts to allow them to compete again.
AL Playoffs
Stupid One Game Wild Card Playoff: Boston over Texas
ALDS: Boston over Los Angeles, Detroit over New York
ALCS: Detroit over Boston
World Series: Detroit over Arizona
There we go. Feel free to call me an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)