I like Buster Olney, but every time I read one of his blogs he seems to make mention of how baseball MUST realign and usually gives a AL East-centric example as to why that's the case. Last week, Olney brought up the Toronto Blue Jays as the latest casualty of AL East inequality:
The latest example of why realignment needs to happen: The 2010 Toronto Blue Jays. The interest in the franchise is withering, and with the Rays and Yankees crushing opponents, it's hard to imagine folks in Toronto will look at the Jays as a serious contender at any time this season. That's too bad, because the Jays have gotten off to a good start and certainly would be good enough to be the front-runner in the AL West; if only there was a different alignment of teams, the Blue Jays -- who have the ninth-best starting pitching ERA in the majors -- would be looked at as a playoff candidate.
There is a lot not to like about this comment. First, unless you're a fan of the asinine notion of "floating realignment" where baseball would become like soccer, with a first tier and second tier of teams constantly moving up and down based on how they performed the year before, you don't get to choose which league in which you play. Sorry, you just don't. If that was the case, I'm sure the Yankees would LOVE the NL West, where 86 wins makes you a juggernaut. Second, anyone else feel a real sense of irony that Olney is talking about how unfair it is that the Blue Jays are in the same division as the Yankees and the RAYS??? Weren't the Rays the posterchild for the small market teams that just can't win, no matter what they do? Now, the Rays are too good, so much so that it's just unfair for everyone else? Now I've heard it all. Lastly, no one in the world expected the Blue Jays to be any good this year and, quite frankly, it will be a shock if they are still in it come June. So, let's not exactly cry for them just yet. Plus, they still have a bunch of games against division leaders, so they have a chance to make up some ground if they are good enough.
But, let's assume that baseball is going to realign. It seems like that is the consensus right now. Everyone wants to see something different.
What makes the most sense?
I am not of the belief that you get rid of the divisions. I like the divisions. I am also not of the belief that you in any way mess with the traditional rivalries that have existed for decades. That means you leave the Yankees with the Red Sox, the Dodgers with the Giants, and the Cardinals with the Cubs.
There are, however, some things you could do:
*Move the Rays and the Blue Jays - This is what I like to call the whine effect. Essentially, the Rays and Jays have complained so freakin much it is time to move them out. Squeaky wheel gets to go to the NL.
All kidding aside, the Rays and the Jays have shown over the years an ability to sneak up and bite the Yankees and the Red Sox. The Jays have proven that, given the right situation, they will spend money, just not the same type of money as the Yanks and the Red Sox. The Rays, as we all know, have great young talent but not the necessary revenue to retain all of them all of the time.
The verdict? I would take the Rays, move them to the NL East, and move the Nationals to the AL East. I would then take the Jays, move them to the NL Central, and I would move the Pirates to the AL East.
Pros - The Rays move to the more manageable NL East, where they only have to deal with the poor man's version of the Yankees and the Red Sox in the Phillies and the Mets, two teams that will spend money, but not break the bank. Plus, it would set up a natural rivalry with the Marlins, another young team that will have a new stadium coming next season. Perhaps both teams could push one another to be better and rule the region. For the Nationals, it puts them in a division with a natural rival as well, the Baltimore Orioles, and it allows them to fill their park several times a year as, no doubt, Yankees, Red Sox, and Orioles games will draw a lot of interest. Also, if and when the Nationals get their footing, they have a chance to be a mid-market team that can spend. They have a decent market which means they might get beat by the Yankees and Sox in terms of payroll, but shouldn't be steamrolled ala the Rays (an added bonus might be that it forces the Orioles to finally get its act together, considering what a great market they have squandered over the last 15 years).
For the Blue Jays, they move to the manageable NL Central where their ability to spend could put them in contention every year. On the flip side, the Pirates have been utter brutal now for so long, they have completely relinquished the right to complain about where they land. They couldn't compete against the teams in the NL Central, so who cares if they are in the same division with the Yankees, Red Sox, and potentially two medium market teams who could have nice payrolls in the Orioles and Nationals? Hey, at the very least, they are gonna pack the stadium every time the Yanks and Sox visit, right? (BTW, the only way this becomes a REALLY good move for baseball is if they relocate the Rays. You can complain all you want about the Yankees and the Red Sox, but if the Rays are intent on keeping a low payroll each year, it won't matter where you stick them. Orlando? Charlotte? Somewhere is anywhere but St. Petersburg)
*Everything is bigger in Texas - Two teams that could really benefit from a geographical rivalry, in my opinion, are the Rangers and the Astros. But, how to get them in the same division when one is in the AL West and the other is in the NL Central? Very simply, give the AL West the extra team and take it away from the NL Central. So, take the Astros and throw them in to the AL West.
Pros - It evens out the divisions in the AL and NL. You would then have five teams in each division. You would put the Astros in the same division as the Rangers and increase their gate each year.Brew
*Brewing some rivalry - I feel like I might be picking on the NL Central a little too much, but my last realignment move would be to take the Brewers and swap them with the Kansas City Royals. Again, this just makes sense from a geographical standpoint.
Pros - The Royals go to the NL Central and can develop a natural rivalry with the St. Louis Cardinals, which are right next to each other. Same thing with the Brewers and the Twins and, in that case, you really end up creating what could be a fun rivalry with the Twinkies and the Brewers. It keeps the White Sox and the Tigers in the AL and in the same division, and you have everyone pretty much fighting all around one another.
So, at the end of the day, here is what my new divisions look like:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Orioles
Nationals
Pirates
AL Central
Twins
Brewers
Tigers
White Sox
Indians
AL West
Rangers
Astros
Athletics
Mariners
Angels
NL East
Phillies
Mets
Rays
Marlins
Braves
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Blue Jays
Royals
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
Padres
Monday, April 26
Thoughts on th NFL draft
A couple of quick thoughts on the 2010 NFL Draft:
*I wasn't a fan of the move to primetime by ESPN and I am still not 100 percent sold on the new format. Look, I watched on Thursday like everyone else because I love the NFL, and the league got an absolute gift when former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen and former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy dropped out of the first round. It gave everyone a day to talk about where these two standouts would go and, in the case of Clausen, dragged his Greek tragedy out over a period of 24 hours instead of two, as it would have been under the old format.
But, waiting through the day on Friday just to get to the second and third rounds seemed somewhat protracted and the overkill on the draft just got ramped up into overdrive. Plus, Thursday night, there are other things on to watch, so you really don't get the opportunity to just focus on the draft the way you do on Saturday. In fact, maybe just out of habit, I ended up turning on the Saturday telecast and watching throughout the afternoon.
*I really don't think it was all that shocking that the Broncos moved up to get Tim Tebow in the first round, or that he went ahead of Jimmy Clausen. None of the quarterbacks in this draft, perhaps besides Sam Bradford, should project out to anything other than average players in the league. Clausen is a decent player, but everything about him screams average: he has an average arm, average accuracy, average mobility in the pocket, and average decision-making abilities. When you couple that with his supposed maturity deficiences (wasn't the greatest teammate or most beloved in the locker room at Notre Dame, had a tendency to blame others for his mistakes, has an air of superiority about him) it isn't earth shattering that teams would be willing to take a pass. When you have exceptional talent, those personality flaws can and will be overlooked. When you are simply a “good” quarterback, they weigh you down.
McCoy didn't have any of those personality flaws attributed to Clausen, but he is small for the position (certainly not a deal breaker, but does make it more difficult to project him as a big time QB), has probably the weakest arm in the draft overall, and, despite the fact that he is an aggressive player who scrambles and uses his legs to make plays, he must also be deemed a little fragile overall. I mean, what amounted to a stinger in his right arm prevented him from going back into the National Championship Game in January.
Now, is Tebow a prototypical quarterback? Absolutely not. Is he going to have to learn a lot to be the starter in Denver? Absolutely. But, look at Tebow's skill package: he has an okay arm, he has cleaned up his mechanics so that he doesn't have as long a delivery with the ball, and he has okay accuracy. That pretty much sounds like the other two QB's, doesn't it? Now, factor in this: he is by far the most athletic quarterback available who can create something out of nothing with his legs; he is a winner who played his best games against the biggest competition (save his very average game against Alabama at the end of last year) and he is a proven leader. You know he is going to put in all the time necessary to get better and has the intelligence to get better. Plus, you know he can become the face of your franchise and you can feel confident he won't be answering questions about police investigations or providing statements through attorneys about assault charges.
When you factor all of that in, and consider that none of these guys are anything but projects, why wouldn't you take a chance on Tebow?
*I liked everything the Oakland Raiders did on draft day, but I have to laugh when I hear people say, almost without hesitation, that Jason Campbell is going to be GREAT now that he is in Al Davis land. Yes, we all know that Campbell has had, what, six different offensive coordinators since he began his time in Washington. But, what no one seems to mention is that one of the reasons why so many coaches and coordinators have been moved out over the years is the inconsistent play of Campbell. Had he stepped up and shown real signs of progress at any point in his “development” it's hard to imagine the Redskins would have been moving people in and out like they were attached to a conveyor belt. At no point has Campbell shown the ability to lead his team, every Sunday, to consistent performances. He is an absolute stick in the pocket, he has a long delivery, and he doesn't throw a particularly accurate deep ball, even though he has a good arm. Is that all coaching?
Also, if stability is the elixar that is destined to cure all of his ills, Oakland probably isn't the perfect landing spot. Is anyone all that confident that Tom Cable is the coach of the Raiders for the long haul? Rumors were that Davis was hell bent on firing him after the season, spent three weeks looking under every stone for a coaching candidate he liked that might be interested in taking the job, and then finally committed to Cable for the upcoming season. Let's say the Raiders get off to a slow start this year, and there is turmoil in that locker room; does anyone believe that Cable will survive? Campbell went from one reactionary owner to another, so everyone looking for Campbell to come into his own now that he will have some “consistency” must have a very short memory.
*After a few days to digest the Giants draft, I have come to a very simple decision: this is all on Jerry Reese and Tom Coughlin now. I was in favor of taking Derrick Morgan over Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP, or JP-squared, if you like) in the first because he is a more polished player who is good against both the pass and the run. Plus, he was the defensive player of the year for the ACC, while JPP only started seven games for University of South Florida in the Big East. But, if I am going to pat the Broncos on the back for taking a reach on Tebow over some players who might be deemed more NFL-ready, I can't then turn around a slam the Giants for taking a reach with a kid everyone seems to believe could turn out to be the best player in the entire draft.
What I like about him: he seems like a good kid, hard worker, and quick learner, who got better as the season went along. He also seems to have somewhat of a mean streak in him, which you like on defense.
What I don't like about him: whenever you hear words like “upside” or “raw” or “still learning to play,” it sets off alarm bells because, let's face it, most of the players who turn out to be busts have the exact same labels coming out of school. JPP fits the bill of the combine warrior, a guy who, in tanktops and shorts, looks like a game breaker. Put a 100-yard dash in front of him, a high jump, an agility test, and he beats his competition time in and time out. But, as we all know, those things end up having little to do with overall football success. Hopefully, JPP ends up becoming a football player with freakish athletic ability and not just a guy who can do back flips on YouTube,
The most interesting guy taken by the G-Men, in my mind, is middle linebacker Phillip Dillard from Nebraska, who will have to play tough and smart football in his career to avoid inevitably being labeled Phyllis Diller. Dillard, a fourth round choice, has elicited a lot of different takes. Some have said that he could come in and be a starter right now, taking over a leadership role almost immediately. Others I have heard have labeled Dillard a career backup who won't be an impact player at the NFL level. Who to believe? I have no idea. All I do know is that Reese has found some sleepers in the past and, with this draft, his talent evaluation will be put to the ultimate test.
*I wasn't a fan of the move to primetime by ESPN and I am still not 100 percent sold on the new format. Look, I watched on Thursday like everyone else because I love the NFL, and the league got an absolute gift when former Notre Dame quarterback Jimmy Clausen and former Texas quarterback Colt McCoy dropped out of the first round. It gave everyone a day to talk about where these two standouts would go and, in the case of Clausen, dragged his Greek tragedy out over a period of 24 hours instead of two, as it would have been under the old format.
But, waiting through the day on Friday just to get to the second and third rounds seemed somewhat protracted and the overkill on the draft just got ramped up into overdrive. Plus, Thursday night, there are other things on to watch, so you really don't get the opportunity to just focus on the draft the way you do on Saturday. In fact, maybe just out of habit, I ended up turning on the Saturday telecast and watching throughout the afternoon.
*I really don't think it was all that shocking that the Broncos moved up to get Tim Tebow in the first round, or that he went ahead of Jimmy Clausen. None of the quarterbacks in this draft, perhaps besides Sam Bradford, should project out to anything other than average players in the league. Clausen is a decent player, but everything about him screams average: he has an average arm, average accuracy, average mobility in the pocket, and average decision-making abilities. When you couple that with his supposed maturity deficiences (wasn't the greatest teammate or most beloved in the locker room at Notre Dame, had a tendency to blame others for his mistakes, has an air of superiority about him) it isn't earth shattering that teams would be willing to take a pass. When you have exceptional talent, those personality flaws can and will be overlooked. When you are simply a “good” quarterback, they weigh you down.
McCoy didn't have any of those personality flaws attributed to Clausen, but he is small for the position (certainly not a deal breaker, but does make it more difficult to project him as a big time QB), has probably the weakest arm in the draft overall, and, despite the fact that he is an aggressive player who scrambles and uses his legs to make plays, he must also be deemed a little fragile overall. I mean, what amounted to a stinger in his right arm prevented him from going back into the National Championship Game in January.
Now, is Tebow a prototypical quarterback? Absolutely not. Is he going to have to learn a lot to be the starter in Denver? Absolutely. But, look at Tebow's skill package: he has an okay arm, he has cleaned up his mechanics so that he doesn't have as long a delivery with the ball, and he has okay accuracy. That pretty much sounds like the other two QB's, doesn't it? Now, factor in this: he is by far the most athletic quarterback available who can create something out of nothing with his legs; he is a winner who played his best games against the biggest competition (save his very average game against Alabama at the end of last year) and he is a proven leader. You know he is going to put in all the time necessary to get better and has the intelligence to get better. Plus, you know he can become the face of your franchise and you can feel confident he won't be answering questions about police investigations or providing statements through attorneys about assault charges.
When you factor all of that in, and consider that none of these guys are anything but projects, why wouldn't you take a chance on Tebow?
*I liked everything the Oakland Raiders did on draft day, but I have to laugh when I hear people say, almost without hesitation, that Jason Campbell is going to be GREAT now that he is in Al Davis land. Yes, we all know that Campbell has had, what, six different offensive coordinators since he began his time in Washington. But, what no one seems to mention is that one of the reasons why so many coaches and coordinators have been moved out over the years is the inconsistent play of Campbell. Had he stepped up and shown real signs of progress at any point in his “development” it's hard to imagine the Redskins would have been moving people in and out like they were attached to a conveyor belt. At no point has Campbell shown the ability to lead his team, every Sunday, to consistent performances. He is an absolute stick in the pocket, he has a long delivery, and he doesn't throw a particularly accurate deep ball, even though he has a good arm. Is that all coaching?
Also, if stability is the elixar that is destined to cure all of his ills, Oakland probably isn't the perfect landing spot. Is anyone all that confident that Tom Cable is the coach of the Raiders for the long haul? Rumors were that Davis was hell bent on firing him after the season, spent three weeks looking under every stone for a coaching candidate he liked that might be interested in taking the job, and then finally committed to Cable for the upcoming season. Let's say the Raiders get off to a slow start this year, and there is turmoil in that locker room; does anyone believe that Cable will survive? Campbell went from one reactionary owner to another, so everyone looking for Campbell to come into his own now that he will have some “consistency” must have a very short memory.
*After a few days to digest the Giants draft, I have come to a very simple decision: this is all on Jerry Reese and Tom Coughlin now. I was in favor of taking Derrick Morgan over Jason Pierre-Paul (JPP, or JP-squared, if you like) in the first because he is a more polished player who is good against both the pass and the run. Plus, he was the defensive player of the year for the ACC, while JPP only started seven games for University of South Florida in the Big East. But, if I am going to pat the Broncos on the back for taking a reach on Tebow over some players who might be deemed more NFL-ready, I can't then turn around a slam the Giants for taking a reach with a kid everyone seems to believe could turn out to be the best player in the entire draft.
What I like about him: he seems like a good kid, hard worker, and quick learner, who got better as the season went along. He also seems to have somewhat of a mean streak in him, which you like on defense.
What I don't like about him: whenever you hear words like “upside” or “raw” or “still learning to play,” it sets off alarm bells because, let's face it, most of the players who turn out to be busts have the exact same labels coming out of school. JPP fits the bill of the combine warrior, a guy who, in tanktops and shorts, looks like a game breaker. Put a 100-yard dash in front of him, a high jump, an agility test, and he beats his competition time in and time out. But, as we all know, those things end up having little to do with overall football success. Hopefully, JPP ends up becoming a football player with freakish athletic ability and not just a guy who can do back flips on YouTube,
The most interesting guy taken by the G-Men, in my mind, is middle linebacker Phillip Dillard from Nebraska, who will have to play tough and smart football in his career to avoid inevitably being labeled Phyllis Diller. Dillard, a fourth round choice, has elicited a lot of different takes. Some have said that he could come in and be a starter right now, taking over a leadership role almost immediately. Others I have heard have labeled Dillard a career backup who won't be an impact player at the NFL level. Who to believe? I have no idea. All I do know is that Reese has found some sleepers in the past and, with this draft, his talent evaluation will be put to the ultimate test.
Sunday, April 18
LeBron will be a Knick, if he knows what's good for him
New York.
The name itself evokes images of the night sky lite up like a Christmas tree, taxi cabs honking on Broadway as a swath of people move along the sidewalks and across the street, and the blaring sound of a city that never sleeps moving through time, carrying the hopes and dreams of eight million people on its back at any given time like a never-ending wave.
There is no place like it in the world. Not Boston. Not Los Angeles. Not Paris. Not Rome. It is the greatest city in the last super power on earth. New York has become the epicenter, and sports has become its heart beat.
I don't know LeBron James. I have never met the man before. I don't know how he feels about Ohio, Cleveland, and his current team. Maybe staying with one franchise his entire career means something. Maybe bringing a championship, even multiple ones, to a battered and beaten midwest town is his white whale, his obsession. Maybe the thought of leaving his home state and team is utterly inconceivable.
But, too many people have ignored what New York means when talking about James' upcoming decision on his future in the NBA. Analysts have talked about money (Cleveland can offer James the most, over the length of a contract) and competitiveness (the Cavs are one of the best teams in the country while the Knicks remain one of the worst) when deciding what a man they know little about will choose to do next year. What few talk about is legacy.
LeBron James is destined to go down as one of the greatest players in the game when he decides to retire. Unless something extraordinarily tragic happens to him, he will win at least one or two championships in his career. He will be remembered as a complete player. He will be remembered as a freak of nature who combined speed and power in a 6'9” frame like no one ever has before, and may not after.
Having said that, his legacy would be different if he became all of that in New York.
Why? Because LeBron has a truly unique opportunity when it comes to the Knicks. He has the ability to come to one of the NBA's greatest franchises, with a rich tradition and a HUGE following, and cement himself as the best player to ever done the uniform. That is something only the Knicks can offer.
Think about the great franchises in the NBA. No matter how great LeBron is, if he went to the Celtics tomorrow he would never supplant Russell or Cousey or Larry Legend in the hearts, minds, or history of the franchise. They are the top. Likewise, if he went to the Lakers, would anyone ever say that LeBron was better than West or Chamberlain or Magic or Kareem? Lakers fans insist that Kobe is the best player in the NBA right now.
Chicago? Forget it, Michael owns that realm and always will. Detroit? The Bad Boys, with Isiah and Rodman and Lambeer, headed by Chuck Daly, are revered to this day. Philadelphia? No doubt, 76ers would annoint LeBron as a basketball God, but a guy by the name of Dr. J once played for that proud franchise, and LeBron would probably always be placed behind him.
The Knicks offer the chance for LeBron to become the “face” of the franchise. As beloved as Willis Reed and Walt Clyde Frazier and the greats of the 70s championship teams remain, and as much as fans might now appreciate Patrick Ewing's winning ways, LeBron would be able to trump them all. He would have the chance to return winning to New York, something of a rarity when it comes to sports.
Think of Mark Messier, The Captain of the New York Rangers who had already established himself as one of the greats before coming to Madison Square Garden in the early 90s. He won five championships in his hometown of Edmonton, Canada. He was well on his way to being a hall of famer.
When he came to the Rangers, the team hadn't won a title in five decades. They were not one of the elite teams in hockey. Yet, Messier and a new group helped transform that, and when he helped the Rangers win the Stanley Cup in 1994, he forever became connected to that team. Now, when people speak of Messier, they talk about 1994 and his game 6 guarantee, and his hat trick, and his ultimate victory. The Edmonton years, though far more successful and the reason for his hall of fame status, are relgated to second when it comes to his career. That one success in New York trumps it all.
LeBron has to realize it would be the same for him.
The Knicks haven't won a championship in 37 years. For those of you keeping score at home, that is nearly four decades of futility. The team also hasn't had an elite player to call its own since Ewing was traded, and the last five years have been the most abysmal in franchise history.
The moment he steps on the court, LeBron changes all of that. He immediately OWNS Madison Square Garden. Not a bad piece of property to call home. He immediately takes his place among the New York elite athletes. In fact, depending on how much success he has, LeBron could push Derek Jeter aside as the King of the City.
Can you put a price tag on that? Can you even factor that in when it comes to a contract?
That's why, when the Knicks open the 2010/2011 regular season next year, I believe LeBron James, and a few other notable signees, will be taking to the court wearing orange and blue. Its because he understands what it means to be the King of the City that Never Sleeps. It's because he understands that he can become the best basketball player New York has ever seen. The mantles for best baseball, football, and hockey players have been locked up for decades.
If LeBron wins in Cleveland, he will be hailed. If he wins in New York, he will be revered like no other.
Want the parade down Canyon of Heroes, LeBron? Want to hang out with CC Sabathia and Derek Jeter? Want Giants tickets at the 50-yard line? Want Jay Z and Alicia Keys to dedicate a song to you? Want to one day be called the greatest that ever played, ahead of Michael, Magic, Larry and the rest? There is only one place for that and, with all due respect, it isn't in Cleveland.
Sunday, March 28
and now for those darn predictions
You know what I love about March in the Northeast? That it is a blatant, unapologetic prick half the time. Last weekend in Connecticut, it was 70 degrees, sunny, breezy, and everyone brought out the cargo shorts and tank tops. This week, December and rainy. That's just the way it goes. That's life in the Northeast. That's why we are not always the nicest folks on the face of the earth. If Mother Nature played groin tap with you the way she does with us come March and even early April, you'd be a little prickly as well.
I had a much longer MLB prediction post ready to go but blog spot wasn't in the mood to allow me to save and I lost much of it. Oh well. What will be will be.
So, here is my abbreviated version of what I expect to happen this season:
AL East
New York Yankees
Tampa Bay Rays
Boston Red Sox
Baltimore Orioles
Toronto Blue Jays
Thoughts: The Yankees, quite simply, are the best team in baseball. They have the most balance and the most talent. I honestly think they wrap up the East sometime in early September.
I'm going with the Rays over the Sox for second, and for the wild card because I just get the sense they are hungry and ready to (somewhat) repeat their 2008 campaign. Is anyone going to bet against Evan Longoria winning an MVP, BJ Upton having a huge comeback year, or Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena playing for pay this year? Me neither.
The Sox will be good as always, and could easily muscle the Rays out, but I just think they have a lot of questions now in the lineup. Everyone's favorite plumber Kevin Youkilis and the happy midget Dustin Pedroia will probably put up their usual numbers, but I am betting on David Ortiz's best years (and best use of steroids) to be behind him and you suddenly have a lot of guys (Adrian Beltre, Mike Cameron, JD Drew) who strike out a lot. They have great pitching, but so do the Yanks and Rays. I don't think they will score consistently with those two teams.
Baltimore is on the right track and Toronto has a few young players coming up, but both teams promise to be stops along the way for the top three in this division.
Best Player in the Division - Evan Longoria
Best Pitcher in the Division - CC Sabathia
Breakout Player in the Division - Adam Jones
Comeback Player in the Division - Vernon Wells
AL Central
Minnesota Twins
Detroit Tigers
Chicago White Sox
Kansas City Royals
Cleveland Indians
Thoughts: Like the East, i think this will be a three-team race. I think the Tigers are really underrated this year after, perhaps, being overrated last season, and the White Sox, top to bottom, has the best pitching. But, I like the Twinkies.
I know they lost Joe Nathan. That's a big loss. But, you can survive if you're Minnesota because they always have quality arms in the pen. Plus, while their rotation doesn't have a top-of-the-line pitcher (unless you are ready to go all in on Francisco Liriano coming back to form), each of their five starters are very solid and should provide good innings. What separates them, in my opinion, is the lineup. That group is as good as any this year, with Mauer and Morneau making up perhaps the best 1-2 punch in the majors (that would be a good debate, wouldn't it? maybe a future post right there).
Kansas City continues on its two-decade rebuilding program and has yet to produce more than a handful of really quality major leaguers during that time (how in the hell is that possible?) and Cleveland is a couple of years away.
If any one of the top three win this division, I won't be shocked, and I think all three will remain in the hunt for a wild card spot as well, but the Twins are the odds-on bet.
Best Player in the Division - Miguel Cabrera
Best Pitcher in the Division - Zach Greinke
Breakout Player in the Division - Austin Jackson
Comeback Player in the Division - Grady Sizemore
AL West
Texas Rangers
LA Angels
Seattle Mariners
Oakland Athletics
Thoughts: This is my "out on a limb" pick. I think the Angels are rip for the picking. They didn't just lose their top pitcher and leadoff hitter this off season. They lost the heartbeat of their team. They lost the guys who, over the years, refused to let the team go down without a fight. Without Chone Figgins and John Lackey, this is a different team.
Can they still win? Absolutely. But, all good things must come to an end, and think this is the end of the line (at least for one year) for the Angels.
Why the Rangers?
Three reasons: one, I can't imagine how in the world the A's will score ANY runs to complement their pitching, two, I think the Mariners come in as the most overrated group in baseball (adding Figgins and Milton Bradley doesn't exactly strike fear in the hearts of opposing pitchers) and, three, I think the Rangers will be able to club their way to a division title.
They aren't winning 96 games, but they won't have to. I expect this team, with its great offense and good young arms, to get just enough pitching to win, what, maybe 89-91 games. That, I believe, will be enough to put the Rangers back in the playoffs.
Best Player in the Division - Ichiro Suzuki
Best Pitcher in the Division - King Felix Hernandez
Breakout Player in the Division - Brandon Wood
Comeback Player in the Division - Vladamir Guerrero
AL East Winner - Yankees
AL Central Winner- Twins
AL West Winner - Rangers
Wild Card Winner - Rays
League Winners - Yankees
NL East
Philadelphia Phillies
Atlanta Braves
New York Mets
Florida Marlins
Washington Nationals
Thoughts: If the Yankees are the class of the AL, the Phillies are clearly the class of the NL. If Cole Hamels comes back and pitches well, this team could win 100 games, and I think Cole Hamels is going to pitch very well. They have the best lineup in the league, perhaps in the majors, and they have proven winners. What could derail them? Just some sort of inner conflict and the strange mind of Charlie Manuel who proves that, in baseball, you can sometimes have a manager that is simply along for the ride.
I love the Braves this year. They have the best 5-man rotation in the division. Just consider that Derek Lowe will be the team's number 4 starter this season. Not too damn shabby. If Chipper Jones can stay healthy and this kid Jason Heyward can be even half as good as projected, the Braves will produce a really well balanced team. I like them for the wild card.
After that, I think both the Marlins and the Mets will battle to stay in contention all season long but will both fade. I don't believe in the Marlins because of their lack of depth (have some great starting lineup and rotation talent, but they are top heavy) and the Mets pitching has the chance to be utterly atrocious (plus the fact that no team in baseball is a better candidate for an implosion, considering the whispers about the future of the manager and general manger should start right........about...........now).
The Nationals? Let's check back with them in about two years.
Best Player in the Division - Chase Utley
Best Pitcher in the Division - Roy Halladay
Breakout Player in the Division - Jason Heyward
Comeback Player in the Division - Tim Hudson
AL Central
St. Louis Cardinals
Milwaukee Brewers
Cincinnati Reds
Chicago Cubs
Pittsburgh Pirates
Houston Astros
Thoughts: This is the obvious, boring pick, but when you have Albert Pujols and Matt Holiday and Chris Carpenter and Adam Weinwright, how, exactly, do you pick someone else? I am not in love with the Cardinals because there are plenty of little holes you can find (Ryan Franklin closing games is kind of like watching a cat step on a hot plate) but they are the class of an otherwise weak division.
I am going with Milwaukee over the Reds for second place because of their offense. I think the Brewers are going to make a commitment (via trade) at some point in the season to prove to Prince Fielder that they intend to try and challenge for the playoffs on a fairly consistent basis, and I think that will put them ahead of an up and coming Reds team that, in another year, if everyone stays healthy and they jettison the human shoulder rupture in Dusty Baker, could be right there with the Cards.
This won't please Cubby fans but I am not high on Chicago at all. I think Carlos Zambrano is more likely to enter a dog fighting match, himself, then have a big year, I am not sure is Alfonso Soriano is ever going to have the same offensive impact as he has before. that bullpen is just screaming out for 5 and 6-run eighth and ninth innings, and Lou Pinella's lower intestines might pop out at one point this year and try to strangle one of his pitchers. Not fun times at Wrigley.
After that, well, the only interest will be when the Astros trade Roy Oswalt and to whom. Neither Houston nor Pittsburgh is going anywhere, as the Pittsburgh general manager tries desperately to convince his long-suffering fan base that trading affordable good young players and using revenue sharing and luxury tax money to pay down team debt is something to get excited about. Hey Pittsburgh, only 160 more payments before your team gets out of debt. Catch the fever.
Best Player in the Division - Albert Pujols
Best Pitcher in the Division - Chris Carpenter
Breakout Player in the Division - Andrew McCutchen
Comeback Player in the Division - Scott Rolen
NL West
Colorado Rockies
LA Dodgers
San Fransisco Giants
Arizona Diamondbacks
San Diego Padres
Thoughts: The only team that I can't see winning this division is the Padres. All the rest have a shot. I'll take the Rockies. Why? Because I didn't believe in them a few years ago and they bit me in the ass. Then, I wrote them off before last year and they did the same freakin thing. I just think they have the right balance of offense and defense, and decent pitching, to pull out a narrow victory. Plus, I think the Dodgers took a step back and I don't think the Giants added enough offense to jump to the top of the division. Now, both the Dodgers and the Giants are probably in better positions to make big trade deadline acquisitions, and that would put the Rockies in a tough spot, but as constituted right now, with Hawpe and Tulowitzki leading the offense, and Aaron Cook anchoring the pitching, I think they take it.
I like Arizona a lot, and could see them possibly getting on a run, but the D-Backs have burned me too many times in the opposite way. How many years am I going to wait for Stephen Drew and Connor Jackson to actually have big years? Of course, with Justin Upton and Mark Reynolds stepping up, and Edwin Jackson joining Dan Haren in the rotation (with Brandon Webb expected back at some point) they have a little more balance than many of the other teams. In fact, I am almost talking myself into the D-Backs here, but I will stick with the Rockies. The D-Backs are just begging me to jump on the bandwagon again so they can flip it over on top of my f*cking head.
Best Player in the Division - Matt Kemp
Best Pitcher in the Division - Tim Lincecum
Breakout Player in the Division - Kyle Blanks
Comeback Player in the Division - Manny Ramirez
NL East Winner - Philadelphia Phillies
NL Central Winner - St. Louis Cardinals
NL West Winner - Colorado Rockies
Wild Card Winner - Atlanta Braves
NL Champion - Atlanta Braves
World Series - Yankees/Braves
Yankees win in 7
Sunday, March 21
Baseball is on the verge of disaster yet again........because the Yankees won
For the first time in nine years, the New York Yankees won the World Series in 2009. What does that mean, besides a November trip down the Canyon of Heroes? It means another winter of discontent for the baseball world, where every Bob Costas disciple comes out of the woodwork to complain that baseball resembles Saudia Arabia, where the rich live in golden palaces and the poor rummage through dumpsters to try and feed their family.
What I always find fascinating about this type of hand ringing is that it only, only takes place when the Yankees win. A few years ago, when the Red Sox rolled over the Rockies with a payroll that more than doubled their friends from Colorado, no one even made a peep. We didn't hear cries for salary caps or "floating realignment" and no one ran to the Tampa Bay Rays to ask them how they felt being in the same division with the high priced team from Boston. In fact, all the way through 2008, the year the Yankees actually missed the playoffs, all you heard was that baseball was experiencing a kind of renaissance. Ratings were good, attendance was up, and people were actually logging in on the Internet to watch the boys of summer.
A year later, nothing seems to have changed except the world champions, but now, instead of birds chirping and Bud Selig singing arias, everyone is predicting the demise of the sport.
Before everyone gets too carried away screaming that baseball doesn't provide the same type of parity as the other sports, let's look at some facts. In the last 30 years, more than 20 different teams have won championships, which is more than any other sport (NFL, NBA, NHL) in America. Also, let's not forget that baseball, by its own choice, has the stingiest playoff roster of all the other sports. In the NBA, eight teams in each conference make the playoffs, which is the same for the NHL. The NFL is a bit more selective, allowing six teams in, but, out of 30 MBL teams, only eight total make the playoffs per year. If baseball were to have decided to add two more playoff teams per league in 1999, here is how the playoff tallies would have added up for AL and NL teams: ]
AL
New York Yankees - 10
Boston Red Sox - 9
Tampa Bay Rays - 1
Baltimore Orioles - 0
Toronto Blue Jays - 2
Cleveland Indians - 5
Chicago White Sox - 7
Minnesota Twins - 7
Detroit Tigers - 3
Kansas City Royals - 0
Texas Rangers - 2
Seattle Mariners - 5
Anaheim Angels - 7
Oakland Athletics - 8
NL
New York Mets - 5
Philadelphia Phillies - 6
Florida Marlins - 3
Atlanta Braves - 7
Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos - 0
Chicago Cubs - 5
Houston Astros - 8
Cincinnati Reds - 1
Milwaukee Brewers - 1
Pittsburgh Pirates - 0
St. Louis Cardinals - 7
Los Angeles Dodgers - 6
San Francisco Giants - 7
Arizona Diamondbacks - 5
San Diego Padres - 3
Colorado Rockies - 2
Couple of things that jump out at me from that list: if the sport had expanded its playoffs, only four teams total in the last 10 years would not have made the playoffs, and only three teams would have had a single appearance. The rest of the teams all would have made the playoffs multiples times. Another thing is how successful supposedly small market teams, like the Twins and Diamondbacks, have been almost every bit as successful putting themselves in playoff position as larger market teams like the Mets, Phillies, Angels, and White Sox. Obviously, the Yankees and the Red Sox would dominate the playoff scenario if it were expanded, but so would the Braves, A's, and Giants. And, in this projection, there is no way to predict how teams would have reacted to being in a playoff hunt all season long.
Then, there are "market size" issues. Take a look at this article from a few years back by Al Streit, where he shows the market size of each team. I found it to be absolutely fascinating in a number of ways. First, there are obviously teams crying small market that actually exist in perfectly equitable markets in which to generate revenue. I'll give the Nationals a pass right now because, as a relocated team that had to suffer through a few year of having Jim Bowden as its GM, one can't expect them to immediately spend money. They are building from the ground up, and that is the appropriate thing to do.
However, what, exactly, is Baltimore's excuse for failure?
In terms of market size, the Orioles have a larger base from which to draw than the Red Sox, yet the Sox field a winner every year and the Orioles are lumped in as one of the "have nots" in baseball. How is that fair? How is that about "market" and not about terrible ownership and shotty decision making? Simply put, the Orioles, if run effectively, should be a team that competes against the Yankees and Red Sox every year.
The other team that really seems to be undercutting its fans are the Oakland Athletics. Granted, the A's have to share their marketplace with the Giants, and one could make the claim that the Bay area of California isn't solid enough to support two teams, but why have the Giants been able to field a team with a decent payroll and the A's consistently sell "Moneyball" as their only way to compete? Again, would better management and ownership have a chance to turn the A's into a franchise that can compete, payroll wise, in the AL West each year?
Another couple of obvious observations is that Major League Baseball seems to have completely missed the boat when it expanded into Tampa Bay. The Rays ownership has been extremely vocal and crying "foul" about having to compete against the Yankees and the Red Sox, but they find themselves in a market that is only above the Pirates in terms of possible fans. Yet, that isn't the biggest factor in the team's inability to generate revenue. What remains a larger hurdle, in my opinion, is that Tampa has notoriously been the retirement home for Northeasteners who are already avid Yankee, Red Sox, Mets, and even Phillies fans. There isn't a large base of unattached fans in which to draw from.
Plus, even if you were capable to siphoning some fans, how in the world can you expect to entice them to come to Tropicana Field? On television, the place plays like a dungeon, without the charm. I can't imagine being a Floridian, with all the possible opportunities for recreation that comes with being in a warm-weather climate all year long, trudging out to depressing Tropicana Field on a June afternoon to watch Rays, Tigers play inside that dome.
In fact, my bet would be that the Rays would probably have more luck drawing fans from what appears in the article to be a smaller market in Orlando, yet it seems to be a better sports town in general, and is a more centrally located Florida city. I also think baseball, in the next few years, should think considerably about some other markets, like Portland (perhaps future home of the A's) or Charlotte (Rays) for relocation. Portland would already seem to be a viable baseball city and Charlotte is a growing metropolis. Instead of allowing teams to stay where they are not succeeding, why not send them to places where revenue and interest might be more pronunced?
The last thing I take from this article is that ownership has as much or more to do with success than anything else. The Angels are listed as being in a market that shares nearly 17 million potential fans with the Dodgers. Yet, before Art Mareno bought the team, the Angels were never considered one of the "big boys" in terms of payroll. Now, they consistently have one of the top payrolls in the sport.
On the flip side, the Dodgers should be nearly on par with the Yankees, yet its owner, with his marital problems and penny-pinching ideas on business, has been reluctant to actually push the payroll envelope.
The Cardinals are technically in a smaller market than the Indians, yet consistently produce a competitive payroll. The same could be said of the Twins as opposed to the Marlins or the Diamondbacks. And the Blue Jays would also seem to have more revenue streams available then they currently let on.
While we are on the subject of payroll, another interesting take on team spending could be found on The Biz of Baseball . The article is yet another indictment of baseball's low revenue teams screaming that they "just can't compete." The crux of the article is simple to digest: the teams that receive the highest amount of revenue sharing are also the most profitable. What does that mean? I think it is simple: these teams, which produce low payroll and non-competitive teams each year, are taking the profits they make from ticket sales and revenue sharing and either pocketing the money or putting the money into non-baseball related functions, such as paying down debt.
That's exactly what the Pirates, the poster child for small market teams, has been doing for years, and as the article points out, it would seem quite clear that, despite ownership's insistance that paying down debt will "help the team in the future," it is far more likely that paying down the debt is a necessary step in making the team more valuable for when they eventually decide to sell.
The Marlins are another team that really jump out at you, simply because ownership always complains that it can't keep its main players because of salary constraints. Yet, this year, when pressure was finally applied by MLB and the players' union, the Marlins anti'd up and paid Josh Johnson and Dan Uggla and will eventually pay Hanley Ramirez. Why were they able to do that? It's because, as the article shows, the Marlins have been extremely profitable.
So, while everyone cried foul on the Yankees, the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, and A's are allowed to take their money, line their own pockets, collect a profit, and blame the large market teams for their inability to compete.
Am I missing something here?
Facts have a funny way of getting in between people and their beliefs and, as such, are usually discarded. So many people have bought into the haves/have nots debate in baseball that they most likely would be unwilling to admit that the MAJOR problem for the MLB is not the high spending clubs but the clubs who all but tank each year in order to bleed one more cent out of the stone.
Look, money obviously matters. The Yankees and Red Sox and the like have a lot of recources to retain top players and plug yearly holes with other top talent.
But, the luxury tax has worked as a salary cap for almost all of baseball except for the Yankees, who have even adhered more to a budget these past two years than they had previously. And, what the articles mentioned above show is that there are a myriad of with many of these teams that go beyond simple market size.
If baseball is serious about closing the gap somewhat, there are a few things I believe it can do: raise the amount required on the luxury tax. Right now, I believe it stands at about 40 percent on the amount above the current level ($170 million, I believe). Raise that to 50 percent or maybe even 55 percent. Trust me, even the Yankees will start cutting payroll if that kind of money is required.
Demand a "floor" in baseball, which could be a compromise for the players' union which would allow them to agree to a more tightly controlled luxury tax (which could easily act like a salary cap, without actually calling it one). Ensure that teams have to spend at least $60 to $65 million per year, which would seem to be more in keeping with the actual revenue sharing structure.
Disperse some of the luxury tax money to low-income teams, seriously consider relocating low-income teams to more profitable areas and encourage owners unwilling or unable to support a franchise to sell to interested parties capable to producing a profitable winner. Also, revamp the way in which teams can acquire foreign players.
Finally, add a wild card to each league (just one) and have the two wild card teams play a best of three series with the three division winners waiting for the outcome. That would add more teams to the playoff race without destroying the credibility of the division races.
I also would not be completely adverse to realignment in some capacity, as long as it made sense and kept in tact natural rivalries. The Yankees and Red Sox, despite both being top spending teams, must be kept in the same division. The same for the Dodgers and the Giants, the Cubs and the Cardinals, even the Mets and the Phillies, which is becoming an interesting and nasty rivalry.
The truth is, much of the whining recently simply stems from Yankee hatred. Baseball remains profitable and is by far America's second most popular sport, right behind the NFL. Coming in to spring training, a majority of teams have a chance to earn a birth in the playoffs this year. Look at each division and ask, which teams' fan bases believe that the playoffs are attainable? Here would be my list, per division:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Rays
AL Central
Twins
White Sox
Tigers
AL West
Angels
Mariners
Rangers
NL East
Phillies
Braves
Mets
Marlins
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Brewers
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
By my count, that is 21 of 30 teams that come into the season with the "belief" that things could fall their way, and that is considering the miniscule amount of squads that end up being allowed to play into October. You would be hard pressed to convince me that any other sport could do much better than 21 of 30 teams, even with significantly more playoff spots opened.
Baseball is never going to adopt a "hard" salary cap, and a "floating realignment" scheme ranks as one of the dumbest baseball ideas ever broached, right up their along with Disco Night at Comiskey Park and The Mitchell Report. Parity can be achieved and smaller market teams can have success. Baseball just needs to be smart about how it approaches the problem, and begin to demand that owners spend to succeed.
What I always find fascinating about this type of hand ringing is that it only, only takes place when the Yankees win. A few years ago, when the Red Sox rolled over the Rockies with a payroll that more than doubled their friends from Colorado, no one even made a peep. We didn't hear cries for salary caps or "floating realignment" and no one ran to the Tampa Bay Rays to ask them how they felt being in the same division with the high priced team from Boston. In fact, all the way through 2008, the year the Yankees actually missed the playoffs, all you heard was that baseball was experiencing a kind of renaissance. Ratings were good, attendance was up, and people were actually logging in on the Internet to watch the boys of summer.
A year later, nothing seems to have changed except the world champions, but now, instead of birds chirping and Bud Selig singing arias, everyone is predicting the demise of the sport.
Before everyone gets too carried away screaming that baseball doesn't provide the same type of parity as the other sports, let's look at some facts. In the last 30 years, more than 20 different teams have won championships, which is more than any other sport (NFL, NBA, NHL) in America. Also, let's not forget that baseball, by its own choice, has the stingiest playoff roster of all the other sports. In the NBA, eight teams in each conference make the playoffs, which is the same for the NHL. The NFL is a bit more selective, allowing six teams in, but, out of 30 MBL teams, only eight total make the playoffs per year. If baseball were to have decided to add two more playoff teams per league in 1999, here is how the playoff tallies would have added up for AL and NL teams: ]
AL
New York Yankees - 10
Boston Red Sox - 9
Tampa Bay Rays - 1
Baltimore Orioles - 0
Toronto Blue Jays - 2
Cleveland Indians - 5
Chicago White Sox - 7
Minnesota Twins - 7
Detroit Tigers - 3
Kansas City Royals - 0
Texas Rangers - 2
Seattle Mariners - 5
Anaheim Angels - 7
Oakland Athletics - 8
NL
New York Mets - 5
Philadelphia Phillies - 6
Florida Marlins - 3
Atlanta Braves - 7
Washington Nationals/Montreal Expos - 0
Chicago Cubs - 5
Houston Astros - 8
Cincinnati Reds - 1
Milwaukee Brewers - 1
Pittsburgh Pirates - 0
St. Louis Cardinals - 7
Los Angeles Dodgers - 6
San Francisco Giants - 7
Arizona Diamondbacks - 5
San Diego Padres - 3
Colorado Rockies - 2
Couple of things that jump out at me from that list: if the sport had expanded its playoffs, only four teams total in the last 10 years would not have made the playoffs, and only three teams would have had a single appearance. The rest of the teams all would have made the playoffs multiples times. Another thing is how successful supposedly small market teams, like the Twins and Diamondbacks, have been almost every bit as successful putting themselves in playoff position as larger market teams like the Mets, Phillies, Angels, and White Sox. Obviously, the Yankees and the Red Sox would dominate the playoff scenario if it were expanded, but so would the Braves, A's, and Giants. And, in this projection, there is no way to predict how teams would have reacted to being in a playoff hunt all season long.
Then, there are "market size" issues. Take a look at this article from a few years back by Al Streit, where he shows the market size of each team. I found it to be absolutely fascinating in a number of ways. First, there are obviously teams crying small market that actually exist in perfectly equitable markets in which to generate revenue. I'll give the Nationals a pass right now because, as a relocated team that had to suffer through a few year of having Jim Bowden as its GM, one can't expect them to immediately spend money. They are building from the ground up, and that is the appropriate thing to do.
However, what, exactly, is Baltimore's excuse for failure?
In terms of market size, the Orioles have a larger base from which to draw than the Red Sox, yet the Sox field a winner every year and the Orioles are lumped in as one of the "have nots" in baseball. How is that fair? How is that about "market" and not about terrible ownership and shotty decision making? Simply put, the Orioles, if run effectively, should be a team that competes against the Yankees and Red Sox every year.
The other team that really seems to be undercutting its fans are the Oakland Athletics. Granted, the A's have to share their marketplace with the Giants, and one could make the claim that the Bay area of California isn't solid enough to support two teams, but why have the Giants been able to field a team with a decent payroll and the A's consistently sell "Moneyball" as their only way to compete? Again, would better management and ownership have a chance to turn the A's into a franchise that can compete, payroll wise, in the AL West each year?
Another couple of obvious observations is that Major League Baseball seems to have completely missed the boat when it expanded into Tampa Bay. The Rays ownership has been extremely vocal and crying "foul" about having to compete against the Yankees and the Red Sox, but they find themselves in a market that is only above the Pirates in terms of possible fans. Yet, that isn't the biggest factor in the team's inability to generate revenue. What remains a larger hurdle, in my opinion, is that Tampa has notoriously been the retirement home for Northeasteners who are already avid Yankee, Red Sox, Mets, and even Phillies fans. There isn't a large base of unattached fans in which to draw from.
Plus, even if you were capable to siphoning some fans, how in the world can you expect to entice them to come to Tropicana Field? On television, the place plays like a dungeon, without the charm. I can't imagine being a Floridian, with all the possible opportunities for recreation that comes with being in a warm-weather climate all year long, trudging out to depressing Tropicana Field on a June afternoon to watch Rays, Tigers play inside that dome.
In fact, my bet would be that the Rays would probably have more luck drawing fans from what appears in the article to be a smaller market in Orlando, yet it seems to be a better sports town in general, and is a more centrally located Florida city. I also think baseball, in the next few years, should think considerably about some other markets, like Portland (perhaps future home of the A's) or Charlotte (Rays) for relocation. Portland would already seem to be a viable baseball city and Charlotte is a growing metropolis. Instead of allowing teams to stay where they are not succeeding, why not send them to places where revenue and interest might be more pronunced?
The last thing I take from this article is that ownership has as much or more to do with success than anything else. The Angels are listed as being in a market that shares nearly 17 million potential fans with the Dodgers. Yet, before Art Mareno bought the team, the Angels were never considered one of the "big boys" in terms of payroll. Now, they consistently have one of the top payrolls in the sport.
On the flip side, the Dodgers should be nearly on par with the Yankees, yet its owner, with his marital problems and penny-pinching ideas on business, has been reluctant to actually push the payroll envelope.
The Cardinals are technically in a smaller market than the Indians, yet consistently produce a competitive payroll. The same could be said of the Twins as opposed to the Marlins or the Diamondbacks. And the Blue Jays would also seem to have more revenue streams available then they currently let on.
While we are on the subject of payroll, another interesting take on team spending could be found on The Biz of Baseball . The article is yet another indictment of baseball's low revenue teams screaming that they "just can't compete." The crux of the article is simple to digest: the teams that receive the highest amount of revenue sharing are also the most profitable. What does that mean? I think it is simple: these teams, which produce low payroll and non-competitive teams each year, are taking the profits they make from ticket sales and revenue sharing and either pocketing the money or putting the money into non-baseball related functions, such as paying down debt.
That's exactly what the Pirates, the poster child for small market teams, has been doing for years, and as the article points out, it would seem quite clear that, despite ownership's insistance that paying down debt will "help the team in the future," it is far more likely that paying down the debt is a necessary step in making the team more valuable for when they eventually decide to sell.
The Marlins are another team that really jump out at you, simply because ownership always complains that it can't keep its main players because of salary constraints. Yet, this year, when pressure was finally applied by MLB and the players' union, the Marlins anti'd up and paid Josh Johnson and Dan Uggla and will eventually pay Hanley Ramirez. Why were they able to do that? It's because, as the article shows, the Marlins have been extremely profitable.
So, while everyone cried foul on the Yankees, the Rays, Marlins, Pirates, and A's are allowed to take their money, line their own pockets, collect a profit, and blame the large market teams for their inability to compete.
Am I missing something here?
Facts have a funny way of getting in between people and their beliefs and, as such, are usually discarded. So many people have bought into the haves/have nots debate in baseball that they most likely would be unwilling to admit that the MAJOR problem for the MLB is not the high spending clubs but the clubs who all but tank each year in order to bleed one more cent out of the stone.
Look, money obviously matters. The Yankees and Red Sox and the like have a lot of recources to retain top players and plug yearly holes with other top talent.
But, the luxury tax has worked as a salary cap for almost all of baseball except for the Yankees, who have even adhered more to a budget these past two years than they had previously. And, what the articles mentioned above show is that there are a myriad of with many of these teams that go beyond simple market size.
If baseball is serious about closing the gap somewhat, there are a few things I believe it can do: raise the amount required on the luxury tax. Right now, I believe it stands at about 40 percent on the amount above the current level ($170 million, I believe). Raise that to 50 percent or maybe even 55 percent. Trust me, even the Yankees will start cutting payroll if that kind of money is required.
Demand a "floor" in baseball, which could be a compromise for the players' union which would allow them to agree to a more tightly controlled luxury tax (which could easily act like a salary cap, without actually calling it one). Ensure that teams have to spend at least $60 to $65 million per year, which would seem to be more in keeping with the actual revenue sharing structure.
Disperse some of the luxury tax money to low-income teams, seriously consider relocating low-income teams to more profitable areas and encourage owners unwilling or unable to support a franchise to sell to interested parties capable to producing a profitable winner. Also, revamp the way in which teams can acquire foreign players.
Finally, add a wild card to each league (just one) and have the two wild card teams play a best of three series with the three division winners waiting for the outcome. That would add more teams to the playoff race without destroying the credibility of the division races.
I also would not be completely adverse to realignment in some capacity, as long as it made sense and kept in tact natural rivalries. The Yankees and Red Sox, despite both being top spending teams, must be kept in the same division. The same for the Dodgers and the Giants, the Cubs and the Cardinals, even the Mets and the Phillies, which is becoming an interesting and nasty rivalry.
The truth is, much of the whining recently simply stems from Yankee hatred. Baseball remains profitable and is by far America's second most popular sport, right behind the NFL. Coming in to spring training, a majority of teams have a chance to earn a birth in the playoffs this year. Look at each division and ask, which teams' fan bases believe that the playoffs are attainable? Here would be my list, per division:
AL East
Yankees
Red Sox
Rays
AL Central
Twins
White Sox
Tigers
AL West
Angels
Mariners
Rangers
NL East
Phillies
Braves
Mets
Marlins
NL Central
Cardinals
Cubs
Brewers
Reds
NL West
Dodgers
Giants
Rockies
Diamondbacks
By my count, that is 21 of 30 teams that come into the season with the "belief" that things could fall their way, and that is considering the miniscule amount of squads that end up being allowed to play into October. You would be hard pressed to convince me that any other sport could do much better than 21 of 30 teams, even with significantly more playoff spots opened.
Baseball is never going to adopt a "hard" salary cap, and a "floating realignment" scheme ranks as one of the dumbest baseball ideas ever broached, right up their along with Disco Night at Comiskey Park and The Mitchell Report. Parity can be achieved and smaller market teams can have success. Baseball just needs to be smart about how it approaches the problem, and begin to demand that owners spend to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
