The Yankees have the best record in baseball and, yet, there seems to be something missing with this team, doesn't there?
I have tried to put my finger on it, but I can't come up with one singular thing that makes me say "oh, that's it." I think it is more a combination of that,flaws that, when gelled together, make you feel less confident that their record should indicate.
Here are a couple of things that have me worried:
The Bullpen - This is probably the biggest "uh oh" for the team right now. Take Rivera out of the equation, as we always do, and who do Yankee fans feel is a "lock" to get big outs? Dave Robertson is pitching very well as of late, but he isn't far enough removed from having pitched poorly to make you confident the corner has been turned permanently. Using Chan Ho Park in any meaningful situation is almost akin to sabotage, and Boone Logan's only saving grace is that he has a terrific Sci-Fi hero name. Besides that, his pitching is kinda crappy.
If and when Alfredo Aceves comes back, he should stabalize a portion of the back-end of the pen, but the larger, more important question will be whether Joba Chamberlain improves or stays the inconsistent tight-rope walker he has become.
Last year, Phil Hughes stabalized the set-up role and allowed the Yankees the opportunity to save Mariano for only one-inning stints. This year, Joba was suppose to return to the role and be just as good as Hughes last season and the Joba 2007 version. It hasn't happened.
The problems that plagued Joba in the rotation last year plague him in the eitghth inning. He can't locate. He can't keep his velocity consistent. His fastball goes straight all too often and become hittable right in the middle of the plate.
Sure, there are those moments when he dominates, but there have been way too many where he has walked in and turned three or four-run leads into one-run deficits. Joe Girardi likes to treat questions about Jobas struggles as reactionary or uninformed, reacting to questions with dismissive comments like "we wish everyone was perfect all the time, but it's not going to happen," or "he struggled, and that happens to everyone. It happens to the best." That's all nice and fine, but great players don't have 6 ERAs, especially out of the bullpen pitching one inning. Great pitchers rattle off great outing after great outing, not one great outing for every two bad ones. That's not a great pitcher, or even a reliable pitcher. That is a powder keg ready to go off any eighth inning.
If Joba can become not just good but close to lights out, that puts everything else in line. It makes Damaso Marte a lefty specialist for late-inning matchups, instead of possible setup man. It makes Robertson that seventh inning place-holder or middle-inning, big-moment stopper, rather than someone constantly being moved around like a chess piece. And, it allows for the Yankees to either stay away from Park or Logan in big spots or move them out and give younger pitchers a chance without fear of putting inexperienced guys in pressure-cooker situations.
However, if Joba continues to be a one good game, one bad game pitcher, it puts a lot of pressure on everyone else and probably puts the Yanks in serious trade talks for a reliever.
The Offense - Look, the Yankees are going to score runs. They have too many good players not to. And, I'll be the first to admit that, if one were so inclined, they could look at the offense as a "glass half full" symbol rather than a cause for concern. If you remove Robinson Cano from the arguement, you can make the case that there isn't one Yankee regular having what could be considered a top year, let alone a career year. Okay, maybe Nick Swisher and Brett Gardner fit the bill, but the big bats of Derek Jeter, Alex Rodriguez, Jorge Posada and Curtis Granderson have been mediocre at best and Mark Teixeira has looked like a shadown of himself through almost three months of the season. You have to expect that a few, if not all of those All-Star caliber players will produce at a much higher level from this point forward, right?
What concerns me is the lack of fundamentals I've seen in the Yankee offense as a whole. They don't move runners over. They don't get them in from third with less than two outs. They routinely strand runners after doubles and even triples. They ground into a lot of double plays and they run themselves out of innings with some bonehead base running from time to time.
Last year, one through nine knew how to play small ball and big ball. They hit homers and pounded pitchers, yes, but in tight games, they knew how to "manufacture" runs.
I believe that such "manufacturing" can be overrated a lot. With the type of hitters the Yankees have, your offense shouldn't really hinge on bunts and sacrifice flys. You should be able to keep the runners moving with doubles and homers. That's why so many of these guys get paid so much.
But, against good teams with good pitching, you have to be able to produce runs in different ways. If your leadoff man doubles, you have to be able to get him to third, then home, without the benefit of a hit. It is a must. Chances are you won't pound out 10 or 12 hits against the better teams, so runs are at a premium. Yes, I expect a lot of these guys to hit better from now through the rest of the season, and that might correct some of these fundamentals. Jeter has been uncharacteristically sloppy with his at bats, failing to take walks, swinging wildly at bad pitches, and not producing in those "situational" hitting moments. Considering he is one of the most fundamentally sound players in history, an improvement on his end would improve the team. However, sometimes teams develop a personality, and that personality stays with them throughout the year. Last year, it was that comeback mentality that prevailed. This year, the team's personality seems far less encouraging.
AJ Burnett - The reason why Burnett's monumental struggles represent a bigger problem than just personal statistics, or a tough matchup every five days, is because of the uncertainty of Javier Vazquez and Phil Hughes. Hughes has been wonderful all year, and Vazquez has been brilliant since April, but neither can be looked upon as givens in big games down the stretch or in the playoffs. Vazquez could just as easily blow up against top competition as shut the other team down, and Hughes has never taken the ball in a playoff spot as a starter and been asked to go 7 or 8 big innings against a formidable lineup (plus, Hughes was very shaky in the playoffs last year in his setup role, which doesn't bode well for his ability to handle pressure situations).
As absolutely frustrating Burnett can be, he is an ace-quality starter when right. He can handle any lineup, and hitter. He was a collection of good and bad in big games last year, but he did manage many clutch performances.
If he continues to be dreadful, it gives the Yankees no room to manuvear. It ensures that Hughes and Vazquez have to be top shelf every time out. It means at least one of the two has to be big in big games. It means less depth. It means more strain on the pen. In short, it means a lot of bad things.
Joe Girardi - I don't think I have been shy in saying I am not the biggest fan of Girardi. I'm sorry, I know he won a championship last year, but there are a lot of mediocre to down right shaky managers who have a ring on their finger. Is it any wonder why Bob Brenly isn't managing a team any longer, despite his run with the Arizona Diamondbacks in 2001?
Girardi, to me, has little feel for the game. He always seems to be making the wrong decision, in that his moves more times than not turn out to produce a negative result. He pinch hits and nothing happens. He pulls pitchers before they are done, and hands it off to ineffective relievers. Or, the next time, he leaves his pitchers in too long and they give up the house. It's almost as if Girardi is constantly trying to find the standard, the book answer: "In this situation you do the following, always an unequivically." Well, in baseball it doesn't always work that way.
You have to be able to have a gut, a natural feel for moments, and Girardi doesn't have that. He also seems to manage scared a lot more than someone in his position should, making what seem to be panic moves. In fact, his entire demeanor in the dugout, at times, seems to indicate an uneasiness, as if he is always waiting for the next shoe to drop.
As a fan, the manager is always an easy target. I criticized Joe Torre when he was bringing championships to New York, and still believe he had a difficult time handling a bullpen when it wasn't full of clutch veteran performers. And, I'll admit, Torre's grandfatherly approach seemed disconnected when the team wasn't winning, as opposed to stalwart and even-headed when they were. However, in the 12 years he was manager, I had more moments where I admired his ability to get something out of nothing than I did to criticize his approach. For a refresher course, go back and look at the teams Torre took to the playoffs in 2005 and 2006. There were a lot of holes on tjose rosters because of injury and underperformance. He was able to piece a lot together and get the most out of players.
Girardi, to me, is a guy much better suited for a younger team. His "always be positive" attitude seems to be more in line with a up-and-coming group than a veteran club that might need a swift kick in the butt from time to time. His inability to challenge and ultimately discipline Robinson Cano in 2008 until the season was lost showed a lack of back bone, his constantly juggling of his lineup to keep guys "fresh" or "ready" reeks of little league everyone-plays rules rather than smart strategy, and his "smile and a pat works better than a snarl and a smack" routine doesn't seem to hold people as accountable as one would like.
Last year, there was a magic to the team that, in my opinion, helped them overcome his quicky managerial style and his often counterproductive moves. I don't get the sense they can do the same this year. His moves have already helped to compound bad situations, and in a tight pennant race with Boston and Tampa, that could honestly be the difference.
Sunday, June 27
Still like New York's chances
To quote one of my least favorite bands, "wish you would step back from that ledge, my friend."
That, of course, is directed to all my Knick fan bretheren who have been told over the last few days that the golden child, Lebron James, once thought to be a lock for Madison Square Garden, will soon be following in Michael Jordan's footsteps in Chicago. That's because Chicago, by trading away Kirk Henrich and their draft pick away to the Washington Wizards on draft night freed up enough cap space to offer two max contract players agreements this off season. Up until that point, the Knicks remained the only team with such maneuverability.
The logic behind Chicago's assumed victory when it comes James is that the Bulls can offer too much in terms of talent for him to turn down. Chicago, with their cap space, could legitimately offer James a lineup of Derrick Rose, Lebron James, Luol Deng, Chris Bosh, and Joakim Noah, plus a young and decent bench, a roster that probably puts the Bulls at the top of the list for championship favorites.
However, here is why I still believe Lebron is coming to New York: Eddy Curry.
There was a report a while back that Lebron had met with Eddy Curry, and it got people wondering whether James would like to play with Curry, who is represented by Lebron's agent. However, I doubt there is much thought in Lebron that he wants Eddy Idle as his teammate for the next however many years. Curry's lack of motivation is now notorious and, even if he were motivated by his reported debt and pending free agency, and the fact that this year is a must, in terms of performance, if he is to have any hope of regaining his career, what are the chances good play would last far beyond this year, and those factors? If Curry were to play well and earn another pay day, it stands to reason he would quickly be back to his old ways.
So, I don't hold out any hppe that Curry is an attractive piece for the Knicks to sell to Lebron. However, I believe his contract is what continues to give the Knicks an advantage over every other team, including the Bulls.
See, Curry's deal has been a weight tied to the neck of thise franchise for years now. No one wanted it and no one wanted him. Now, however, Curry's $11.3 million is good for this year only. That gives the Knicks what has become the NBA equaivalent of the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket: an expiring contract. If you're a team with a high-priced player, but no where near winning, and in need of cutting payroll, Curry is your ideal. He clears space and is off your books once next season starts. He is instant flexibility. Plus, considering everything I just mentioned, he might be an asset for a team in a backup role.
So, when the Knicks sit down with Lebron, yes they are going to tout New York, the glitz, the glamour, the marketing opportunities and the business connections he can make, and yes, they are going to market the fact that Lebron can join with Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer right when the year starts, and yes, you're going to tout Danillo Galinari as a top young player who can shoot it from a mile away and grab some rebounds in the process. But what you can also offer is the chance to nab another top-flight player as early as mid-season or, at the latest, next season.
There are a lot of teams that would be looking to dump salary come this season. One can forsee the Suns, Warriors, Hornets, Rockets, and Pistons, to name a few, who would be interested in clearing space, and all of them have deals that would most certainly be attractive to the Knicks. You could also see a team like the 76ers being interested in the contract, as they look to build around newly-drafted Evan Turner. Names like Andre Igudola, Baron Davis, Emeka Okafor, Tayshaun Prince, or Al Jefferson should pretty much all be in the mix in terms of trades, and all would be a great compliment to Lebron. There is also the outside chance that Chris Paul could be on the market come the trade deadline, and Curry's contract would allow the Knicks the flexibility to be in the bidding for that. Also, if you were to add in Wilson Chandler's contract, which is about $1.3 million, you could imagine multiple player trades.
Let's look at some possibilities, in terms of Knick starting five, assuming they trade Curry: Lebron James, Andre Igudola, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Chris Bosh, or Baron Davis, James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, or James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Okafor, or (perhaps most attractive) James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Al Jefferson.
I would put those teams up against the possibilities for the Bulls any day of the week.
Now, I'm sure other players will come into the mix and, as I said, if you threw in Chandler, you could probably get a multiple deal done. If you traded Curry and Chandler to the Hornets, for instance, you might get Okafor and Darren Collison back. In that scenario, the Knicks would add a sharp-shooting, quick point guard and a tough, rebounding, good defensive center who can get up and down the court. I have to say, if the Knicks team at some point next year were Darren Collison (PG), Lebron James (SG), Danilo Gallinari (SF), Chris Bosh (PF), and Emeka Okafor (C), I'm liking that team a lot. They might run into serious problems with Dwight Howard, who gives Okafor fits, but at least they would have a guy who could compitently guard Howard one-on-one. It would also give Lebron two sharp-shooters to play with (Collison and Gallinari) along with the great player in Bosh. Wouldn't you be looking at that Knicks team, right there, to compete with the Celtics and Orlando as the best team?
Look, no one knows what is happening in Lebron's mind right now, except, I believe, Lebron. This weekend I have read the following reports: he is a lock to go to Chicago and he still doesn't want to play in the shadow of Jordan; his business manager and trusted friend want nothing to do with the Knicks, and that his best friends still insist that his desire, from the outset, has been to play in New York and that "nothing has changed." In essence, all of these teams vying for Lebron's services are pretty equal, in my opinion. You can create lineups and rosters for all of these teams that put Lebron in a position to win. If he goes to Chicago, his lineup could be the one mentioned above. If he goes to the Knicks, you can create several different lineups that give him a terrific chance to win. If he goes to the Nets, he can join his buddy Jay-Z, be plugged into a Russian billionaire, and can play with young, talented players. A lineup of Devin Harris (PG), James (SG), Terrence Williams (SF), Derrick Favors (PF), Brooke Lopez (C). That is pretty darn attractive in its own right.
Since one can only speculate, we all seem to simply project what we would do in his shoes. So, I'll offer my two cents. If I were Lebron, my top choice would be the Knicks, second would be the Nets, third would be the Bulls. I wouldn't want to play in the shadow of Michael Jordan, nor would I look at Rose as being an ideal compliment to his game. If I were he, I would want a terrific big man in the middle (Bosh) and another really good player on the wing, but no one who is looking to be the "big dog" on his own one day, and one can't imagine Rose being happy being the third wheel.
That, of course, is directed to all my Knick fan bretheren who have been told over the last few days that the golden child, Lebron James, once thought to be a lock for Madison Square Garden, will soon be following in Michael Jordan's footsteps in Chicago. That's because Chicago, by trading away Kirk Henrich and their draft pick away to the Washington Wizards on draft night freed up enough cap space to offer two max contract players agreements this off season. Up until that point, the Knicks remained the only team with such maneuverability.
The logic behind Chicago's assumed victory when it comes James is that the Bulls can offer too much in terms of talent for him to turn down. Chicago, with their cap space, could legitimately offer James a lineup of Derrick Rose, Lebron James, Luol Deng, Chris Bosh, and Joakim Noah, plus a young and decent bench, a roster that probably puts the Bulls at the top of the list for championship favorites.
However, here is why I still believe Lebron is coming to New York: Eddy Curry.
There was a report a while back that Lebron had met with Eddy Curry, and it got people wondering whether James would like to play with Curry, who is represented by Lebron's agent. However, I doubt there is much thought in Lebron that he wants Eddy Idle as his teammate for the next however many years. Curry's lack of motivation is now notorious and, even if he were motivated by his reported debt and pending free agency, and the fact that this year is a must, in terms of performance, if he is to have any hope of regaining his career, what are the chances good play would last far beyond this year, and those factors? If Curry were to play well and earn another pay day, it stands to reason he would quickly be back to his old ways.
So, I don't hold out any hppe that Curry is an attractive piece for the Knicks to sell to Lebron. However, I believe his contract is what continues to give the Knicks an advantage over every other team, including the Bulls.
See, Curry's deal has been a weight tied to the neck of thise franchise for years now. No one wanted it and no one wanted him. Now, however, Curry's $11.3 million is good for this year only. That gives the Knicks what has become the NBA equaivalent of the Willy Wonka Golden Ticket: an expiring contract. If you're a team with a high-priced player, but no where near winning, and in need of cutting payroll, Curry is your ideal. He clears space and is off your books once next season starts. He is instant flexibility. Plus, considering everything I just mentioned, he might be an asset for a team in a backup role.
So, when the Knicks sit down with Lebron, yes they are going to tout New York, the glitz, the glamour, the marketing opportunities and the business connections he can make, and yes, they are going to market the fact that Lebron can join with Chris Bosh or Amare Stoudemire or Carlos Boozer right when the year starts, and yes, you're going to tout Danillo Galinari as a top young player who can shoot it from a mile away and grab some rebounds in the process. But what you can also offer is the chance to nab another top-flight player as early as mid-season or, at the latest, next season.
There are a lot of teams that would be looking to dump salary come this season. One can forsee the Suns, Warriors, Hornets, Rockets, and Pistons, to name a few, who would be interested in clearing space, and all of them have deals that would most certainly be attractive to the Knicks. You could also see a team like the 76ers being interested in the contract, as they look to build around newly-drafted Evan Turner. Names like Andre Igudola, Baron Davis, Emeka Okafor, Tayshaun Prince, or Al Jefferson should pretty much all be in the mix in terms of trades, and all would be a great compliment to Lebron. There is also the outside chance that Chris Paul could be on the market come the trade deadline, and Curry's contract would allow the Knicks the flexibility to be in the bidding for that. Also, if you were to add in Wilson Chandler's contract, which is about $1.3 million, you could imagine multiple player trades.
Let's look at some possibilities, in terms of Knick starting five, assuming they trade Curry: Lebron James, Andre Igudola, Wilson Chandler, Danilo Gallinari, Chris Bosh, or Baron Davis, James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, or James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Okafor, or (perhaps most attractive) James, Chandler, Gallinari, Bosh, Al Jefferson.
I would put those teams up against the possibilities for the Bulls any day of the week.
Now, I'm sure other players will come into the mix and, as I said, if you threw in Chandler, you could probably get a multiple deal done. If you traded Curry and Chandler to the Hornets, for instance, you might get Okafor and Darren Collison back. In that scenario, the Knicks would add a sharp-shooting, quick point guard and a tough, rebounding, good defensive center who can get up and down the court. I have to say, if the Knicks team at some point next year were Darren Collison (PG), Lebron James (SG), Danilo Gallinari (SF), Chris Bosh (PF), and Emeka Okafor (C), I'm liking that team a lot. They might run into serious problems with Dwight Howard, who gives Okafor fits, but at least they would have a guy who could compitently guard Howard one-on-one. It would also give Lebron two sharp-shooters to play with (Collison and Gallinari) along with the great player in Bosh. Wouldn't you be looking at that Knicks team, right there, to compete with the Celtics and Orlando as the best team?
Look, no one knows what is happening in Lebron's mind right now, except, I believe, Lebron. This weekend I have read the following reports: he is a lock to go to Chicago and he still doesn't want to play in the shadow of Jordan; his business manager and trusted friend want nothing to do with the Knicks, and that his best friends still insist that his desire, from the outset, has been to play in New York and that "nothing has changed." In essence, all of these teams vying for Lebron's services are pretty equal, in my opinion. You can create lineups and rosters for all of these teams that put Lebron in a position to win. If he goes to Chicago, his lineup could be the one mentioned above. If he goes to the Knicks, you can create several different lineups that give him a terrific chance to win. If he goes to the Nets, he can join his buddy Jay-Z, be plugged into a Russian billionaire, and can play with young, talented players. A lineup of Devin Harris (PG), James (SG), Terrence Williams (SF), Derrick Favors (PF), Brooke Lopez (C). That is pretty darn attractive in its own right.
Since one can only speculate, we all seem to simply project what we would do in his shoes. So, I'll offer my two cents. If I were Lebron, my top choice would be the Knicks, second would be the Nets, third would be the Bulls. I wouldn't want to play in the shadow of Michael Jordan, nor would I look at Rose as being an ideal compliment to his game. If I were he, I would want a terrific big man in the middle (Bosh) and another really good player on the wing, but no one who is looking to be the "big dog" on his own one day, and one can't imagine Rose being happy being the third wheel.
Monday, May 24
Upon further consideration................
I am not going to comment on the debacle in Queens this weekend. When your starting pitching goes in the tank like that and your hitters all take a collective break, you're gonna lose, even to a bad team like the Mets (especially when they throw their two best pitchers at you during the series). I could talk about how badly Teixeira has been playing, how little power A-Rod has showcased this year, and how the collective slumping of Jeter, Cano, and Gardner has hurt the team, but I would rather take the high road and wait it out. Let's see how they react against the Twins this week. If they can win a few there, they can easily settle into a very accomodating June schedule. Let's see if someone can help right the ship here.
Instead, I want to talk about my second favorite subject on this blog over the last few months and that is Lebron James. A few weeks back I wrote that Lebron would be a New York Knick if he knew what is good for him. I still think the Knicks have a compelling case to make. They are the only team that can bring in two max free agents, meaning that Lebron can essentially pick with whom he would like to play for the next 10 years.
However, after further review, I have decided to amend my earlier statement. Yes, I believe Lebron is leaving Cleveland. Yes, I believe he is coming to New York. But, I believe when he arrives, he'll be wearing a Nets jersey (pun intended).
Why?
Looking at it, I believe there is really only one hurdle (a big one) that prevents New Jersey from being the absolute, prohibitive favorite when it comes to the James sweepstakes: their home for the next two years. I can't believe that playing in Newark seems like the answer to an NBA dream for Lebron, and it is a mountain that has to be climbed. Granted, playing in Newark for the next two years, before moving on to Brooklyn, is better than playing in the IZOD center, the Tropicana Field of the NBA, but it still represents a lateral move in terms of cities when it comes to Lebron. And, if the move were coming in, say, a year, then I would say it wouldn't be as big a problem, but two years? It doesn't seem like much, but in sports two years can be a lifetime.
That being said, I still believe Lebron ends up in Newark with the Nets. There are ways around the geography, other things that will come into play, that will make it easy for James to accept a new, temporary home in Newark.
1.) It is temporary - Lebron, in signing with the Nets, wouldn't necessarily be committing to Newark. He would, instead, be committing to Brooklyn. If all were to go as planned, the Nets would move into the Barclay Arena in Brooklyn in the 2012/2013 season. Lebron, by that time, would be 27 years old. He would still have the best five or six years of his career ahead of him, if not more (Lebron could easily be a 35 or 36-year old playing at a high level).
Playing in Brooklyn, bringing professional sports back to that area, has got to be appealing to Lebron. Brooklyn has been pining for something since the Dodgers left what seems like a million years ago and basketball seems like a perfect fit. No, the wait isn't ideal, but the final destination ultimately is.
2.) Mikhail Prokhorov - What everyone keeps focusing on is that the NBA's version of Donald Trump has a whole lotta money. That's true, and that is a huge factor in why Lebron would choose the Nets. Unlike Cleveland, whose owned by a run-of-the-mill milionaire, Prokhorov is worth billions. Lebron needs his owner to splurge for a new small forward down the road, so be it. Need your owner to go well beyond the salary cap for not just two or three years, but 10 years? You found your man.
But, Prokhorov's fortune goes beyond just simply his ability to sign Lebron and put some high-priced pieces around him. It is also about what he can offer the budding superstar. Lebron wants to be an international star, beyond what he already is, and there is no owner in the NBA that offers a greater opportunity to promote that brand worldwide than Prokhorov. Also, the Nets are a minority owner with the Yankees in the YES Network, the most successful regional sports channel around. Having Prokhorov and the Yankee-run Yes Network behind him would seem more than a small step towards truly promoting his brand. Finally, it offer Lebron options in terms of a contract I can't imagine he would get anywhere else. What is going to stop Prokhorov from including provisions within Lebron's contract, or striking a second contract outside the lines of a normal NBA performance agreement, that would allow Lebron to take advantage of certain aspects of his empire that no one else has. I can imagine that, if Lebron really wants to eventually be a billionaire and owner of a team, that kind of a connection and possible partnership, one that can't be duplicated in the NBA, is invaluable.
3.) A little talent never hurts - It would seem somewhat comical to talk about talent and a team that won 12 games last year in the same breath, but the Nets are in a better roster position than most teams looking to bring in Lebron. First, if Lebron wants to sign outright with the Nets, he would join a team with Devin Harris, Brooke Lopez, and a very talented young player in Terrence Williams. That is a threesome Lebron could join right now that would provide for athleticism and talent, and plays well into Lebron's strength. There is no one that sports the potential big man like Lopez, and Harris is a very good distributor and jump shooter, while Williams adds a load of athletic ability. Lebron could rack up triple doubles with those guys without even breaking a sweat. Also, don't forget that the Nets have Yi Jianlian, who isn't as dominate a presence as a lot had hoped, but is an excellent spot up 3-point shooter, something Lebron despertaley needs.
Also, while the Nets didn't land the number 1 pick and John Wall, they did land the number 3 pick. Let's say that pick ends up being Derrick Favors from Wake Forrest. This is a 6-10 kid, 7-2 wing span who will be able to block shots and dunk on the world right out of college. If his offensive game comes around, he could be terrific (some are saying he has the raw tools to end up being the best player to come out of the draft in the next 5 years). That would add another big time talent to the Nets. Let's also not forget the Nets have the cap room to sign another top-talent player to the mix. Since Lebron could use a good spot-up jump shooter to go along with Yi Jianlian, what about signing the veteran Rip Hamilton? I think Detroit is looking to go in the direction of Ben Gordon anyway. Hamilton is 32, which makes him a young old. He is the perfect "run him off screens and get open" kinda guy. He can hit threes and, perhaps most importantly, he has won a championship, which means he can be a good influence for Lebron.
A team of Lebron, Harris, Hamilton, Favors, and Lopez, with Jianlian, Williams, and Courtney Lee off the bench, seems pretty darn good, doesn't it? If Favors ever became the type of player his talent dictates he could be, that is one special kinda team. Harris suddenly becomes option three, Hamilton option four, and Favors, in his rookie year, is simply asked to be athletic, rebound, block shots, and dunk when Lebron or Harris throws him an alley-oop.
The depth also allows the Nets to be major players if Lebron wants a sign and trade with Cleveland. This would allow him to sign the full contract with the Cavs but then move on to the Nets. Now, you might ask why the Cavs would do this: simple, because, if you know Lebron is outtie 5,000, why not accomodate him and get something back in return? In that scenario, it's hard to imagine that the Nets offer with Harris as the centerpiece wouldn't be extrememly attractive.
Instead, I want to talk about my second favorite subject on this blog over the last few months and that is Lebron James. A few weeks back I wrote that Lebron would be a New York Knick if he knew what is good for him. I still think the Knicks have a compelling case to make. They are the only team that can bring in two max free agents, meaning that Lebron can essentially pick with whom he would like to play for the next 10 years.
However, after further review, I have decided to amend my earlier statement. Yes, I believe Lebron is leaving Cleveland. Yes, I believe he is coming to New York. But, I believe when he arrives, he'll be wearing a Nets jersey (pun intended).
Why?
Looking at it, I believe there is really only one hurdle (a big one) that prevents New Jersey from being the absolute, prohibitive favorite when it comes to the James sweepstakes: their home for the next two years. I can't believe that playing in Newark seems like the answer to an NBA dream for Lebron, and it is a mountain that has to be climbed. Granted, playing in Newark for the next two years, before moving on to Brooklyn, is better than playing in the IZOD center, the Tropicana Field of the NBA, but it still represents a lateral move in terms of cities when it comes to Lebron. And, if the move were coming in, say, a year, then I would say it wouldn't be as big a problem, but two years? It doesn't seem like much, but in sports two years can be a lifetime.
That being said, I still believe Lebron ends up in Newark with the Nets. There are ways around the geography, other things that will come into play, that will make it easy for James to accept a new, temporary home in Newark.
1.) It is temporary - Lebron, in signing with the Nets, wouldn't necessarily be committing to Newark. He would, instead, be committing to Brooklyn. If all were to go as planned, the Nets would move into the Barclay Arena in Brooklyn in the 2012/2013 season. Lebron, by that time, would be 27 years old. He would still have the best five or six years of his career ahead of him, if not more (Lebron could easily be a 35 or 36-year old playing at a high level).
Playing in Brooklyn, bringing professional sports back to that area, has got to be appealing to Lebron. Brooklyn has been pining for something since the Dodgers left what seems like a million years ago and basketball seems like a perfect fit. No, the wait isn't ideal, but the final destination ultimately is.
2.) Mikhail Prokhorov - What everyone keeps focusing on is that the NBA's version of Donald Trump has a whole lotta money. That's true, and that is a huge factor in why Lebron would choose the Nets. Unlike Cleveland, whose owned by a run-of-the-mill milionaire, Prokhorov is worth billions. Lebron needs his owner to splurge for a new small forward down the road, so be it. Need your owner to go well beyond the salary cap for not just two or three years, but 10 years? You found your man.
But, Prokhorov's fortune goes beyond just simply his ability to sign Lebron and put some high-priced pieces around him. It is also about what he can offer the budding superstar. Lebron wants to be an international star, beyond what he already is, and there is no owner in the NBA that offers a greater opportunity to promote that brand worldwide than Prokhorov. Also, the Nets are a minority owner with the Yankees in the YES Network, the most successful regional sports channel around. Having Prokhorov and the Yankee-run Yes Network behind him would seem more than a small step towards truly promoting his brand. Finally, it offer Lebron options in terms of a contract I can't imagine he would get anywhere else. What is going to stop Prokhorov from including provisions within Lebron's contract, or striking a second contract outside the lines of a normal NBA performance agreement, that would allow Lebron to take advantage of certain aspects of his empire that no one else has. I can imagine that, if Lebron really wants to eventually be a billionaire and owner of a team, that kind of a connection and possible partnership, one that can't be duplicated in the NBA, is invaluable.
3.) A little talent never hurts - It would seem somewhat comical to talk about talent and a team that won 12 games last year in the same breath, but the Nets are in a better roster position than most teams looking to bring in Lebron. First, if Lebron wants to sign outright with the Nets, he would join a team with Devin Harris, Brooke Lopez, and a very talented young player in Terrence Williams. That is a threesome Lebron could join right now that would provide for athleticism and talent, and plays well into Lebron's strength. There is no one that sports the potential big man like Lopez, and Harris is a very good distributor and jump shooter, while Williams adds a load of athletic ability. Lebron could rack up triple doubles with those guys without even breaking a sweat. Also, don't forget that the Nets have Yi Jianlian, who isn't as dominate a presence as a lot had hoped, but is an excellent spot up 3-point shooter, something Lebron despertaley needs.
Also, while the Nets didn't land the number 1 pick and John Wall, they did land the number 3 pick. Let's say that pick ends up being Derrick Favors from Wake Forrest. This is a 6-10 kid, 7-2 wing span who will be able to block shots and dunk on the world right out of college. If his offensive game comes around, he could be terrific (some are saying he has the raw tools to end up being the best player to come out of the draft in the next 5 years). That would add another big time talent to the Nets. Let's also not forget the Nets have the cap room to sign another top-talent player to the mix. Since Lebron could use a good spot-up jump shooter to go along with Yi Jianlian, what about signing the veteran Rip Hamilton? I think Detroit is looking to go in the direction of Ben Gordon anyway. Hamilton is 32, which makes him a young old. He is the perfect "run him off screens and get open" kinda guy. He can hit threes and, perhaps most importantly, he has won a championship, which means he can be a good influence for Lebron.
A team of Lebron, Harris, Hamilton, Favors, and Lopez, with Jianlian, Williams, and Courtney Lee off the bench, seems pretty darn good, doesn't it? If Favors ever became the type of player his talent dictates he could be, that is one special kinda team. Harris suddenly becomes option three, Hamilton option four, and Favors, in his rookie year, is simply asked to be athletic, rebound, block shots, and dunk when Lebron or Harris throws him an alley-oop.
The depth also allows the Nets to be major players if Lebron wants a sign and trade with Cleveland. This would allow him to sign the full contract with the Cavs but then move on to the Nets. Now, you might ask why the Cavs would do this: simple, because, if you know Lebron is outtie 5,000, why not accomodate him and get something back in return? In that scenario, it's hard to imagine that the Nets offer with Harris as the centerpiece wouldn't be extrememly attractive.
Saturday, May 15
Listen to Kevin, Bron Bron
Hey Lebron, welcome to the best, weirdest, and certainly most hyped summer of your life. I hope you weren't planning any trips to Disney or some international jaunts with Ricky Williams, cause you aint gonna have time.
Chances are, you're gonna spend a lot of time in Chicago and New York, with a trip over to Newark. Heck, you might even decide to venture over to LA LA land and talk with that second-class citizen team, the Clippers, just for a free trip to Hollywood and a chance to hang with Halle Berry one night.
This is your summer, and I have no doubt you plan on soaking it up.
The truth is, everyone with a pulse and an interest in basketball is going to give you some advice. Heck, even the President and the Mayor of New York have already chimed in. I'm sure your phone is going to ring more than Tiger Woods' when his wife was out of town for the weekend.
Well, since I don't have your number, let me offer this piece of advice from the comfort of my own home: don't walk, run from Cleveland as soon as you can.
Look, people are going to try (heck, they already are trying) to box you into Cleveland for the next several years of your life by strapping you to the word loyalty. In the eyes of so many fans and media personalities, you "owe" Cleveland and the Cavaliers something. You "owe" them a career. You "owe" them the best years of your professional life. The reason you "owe" them? Well, that's where things get a little foggy, but it seems most believe your loyalty should simply stem from your place of birth: you were born in Cleveland so, I guess, you should die in Cleveland (at least career-wise, anyway).
Brush these idiotic rumblings aside as you pursue your goals.
Look, you don't owe anyone anything, other than yourself. You have been in Cleveland for seven years. In that time, you have played with heart and soul and taken your team to heights they wouldn't have even been able to imagine had you not been on the roster. Rarely, considering the amount of money you athletes make, does a player give a city and a franchise more than he gets but, in your case, it's the truth. In the annals of sports, you are probably the most underpaid athlete that has ever taken a breath, considering what you have done for that town.
You played all seven years of your contract. You didn't "demand" anything. You didn't force the team to hirer or firer any coaches based on your preferences. You didn't "demand" they get player X or Y because you guys were buddies. You didn't spend your time throwing your general manager of owner under the bus, even when they made obviously bad moves that hindered your ability to win.
You were the best show on earth for seven years in Cleveland and, not once did you demand to leave.
You have fullfilled everything required and, now, you can leave with your head held high.
The truth is, Lebron, Cleveland has already essentially made your choice for you. Had they surrounded you with another superstar player and a roster of winners, then your exit would be more difficult. Then, it would appear as if your were abandoning winning for big-city glory. Then, it would truly appear that championships took a back seat to image in your world.
Yet, in seven years the Cavs have failed to even remotely develop a roster worthy of your talents. Look at the teams still competeing for a championship, Lebron: the Celtics, the team that just beat you, has three hall of fame players (Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce), a rising superstar in Rajon Rondo, and gutty players like Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis to even out the roster. Your buddy Kobe Bryant will play the rest of his years with All-Star caliber players Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum, not to mention talented players like Sheldon Brown and a terrific veteran point guard in Derek Fisher.
Orlando? Talent oozes out of that team, so much so that they cruised through their first round with their best player, Dwight Howard, essentially a non-factor. And Steve Nash has Amare Stoudemire, Jason Richardson, and Grant Hill to back him up. Now, for fun, take a look at your roster, this juggernaut of a team the Cavaliers have surrounded you with: the rumor of Shaquille O'Neill, the overrated Antwan Jamison, and Mo Williams, who wouldn't start for any of the teams I mentioned previously. Those are your top options. That is the "winning" group this franchise put around you. Not exactly the 1986 Celtics or 1988 Lakers, huh?
Look, you won 67 games this year, mainly because you were completely and utterly brilliant each and every game. That record fooled a lot of people into believeing that there was some talent around you, but I doubt it conned you the way it did so many media types. You had to have known that once you ran into a really good team, you were toast, right? You had to have known that Mo Williams wasn't gonna do it for you in a big spot, right?
That's why it is time to leave, my friend. That's why the Cavs, with seven years of "plugging holes" instead of developing a champion has all but asked you to leave. They haven't surrounded you with a team, they've surrounded you with a bunch of guys they expect you to make better than they really are. They've surrounded you, for seven straight years, with a cast that can't stand on its own two feet unless you are behind them, holding them up. They haven't handed you the reigns to a Ferrari, they have given you the keys to a Gremlin and asked that you turn it into a Bentley. Then, when you don't, no one comes running to your defense to say "hold on, now, this guy is as good as it gets and we stand behind him."
You don't owe Cleveland anything, Lebron, they owed you, and they failed to do anything other than act like they were putting together a great team.
If you're going to stay, you have to ask yourself whether you think it is going to get any better. Is this team going to bring in that second gun? I doubt it. How can they. They have already locked themselves (and, subsequently you) into a bunch of bad, inconceived contracts all in an effort to throw enough garbage at the wall to see if something sticks. It hasn't, and it isn't going to next year or the year after.
Kevin Garnett the other night talked about your youth. He talked about how, had he to do it over, he would probably have moved on from Minnesota sooner. In other words, he wouldn't have allowed some antiquated sense of "loyalty" to all but ruin his career. Now, towards the end of his career, KG has gotten redemption, but the best years were spent trying desperately to singlehandedly bring another down-on-its-luck city at the time, Minnesota, something to cheer about. It shouldn't have been his cross to bear and it shouldn't be yours, either.
You have options. You have tremendous options. You have the chance to determine the course of your career. Don't let others decide what you should or shouldn't do, when they probably wouldn't adhere to their own advice in a similar situation. Listen to KG. Understand that this is your time. Understand that this is a chance for you to make your mark. You can do that in New York, which will hand you the keys to one of the flagship organizations in the NBA, and all but let you pick your roster for next year and beyond. You can go to the Nets, who are about to bring professional sports back to the burrow of Brooklyn, and who has a cavalcade of talent either on the roster or coming via the draft and free agency. You can go to Chicago and join Derek Rose and Loul Deng and perhaps another great free agent player. You can instantly walk on to a team next year that has more talent and more ability than the Cavs did this year, and you can hitch your wagon to a franchise that is willing to spend (over the cap) as much as is needed to bring you the rings you crave.
Go to New York, Lebron. Go to New Jersey/Brooklyn, or to Chicago, or even to Miami with your buddhy Dwayne Wade. Only, don't let a city or a media tie you to Cleveland. It's your life, my friend and your career. Don't let both die there.
Chances are, you're gonna spend a lot of time in Chicago and New York, with a trip over to Newark. Heck, you might even decide to venture over to LA LA land and talk with that second-class citizen team, the Clippers, just for a free trip to Hollywood and a chance to hang with Halle Berry one night.
This is your summer, and I have no doubt you plan on soaking it up.
The truth is, everyone with a pulse and an interest in basketball is going to give you some advice. Heck, even the President and the Mayor of New York have already chimed in. I'm sure your phone is going to ring more than Tiger Woods' when his wife was out of town for the weekend.
Well, since I don't have your number, let me offer this piece of advice from the comfort of my own home: don't walk, run from Cleveland as soon as you can.
Look, people are going to try (heck, they already are trying) to box you into Cleveland for the next several years of your life by strapping you to the word loyalty. In the eyes of so many fans and media personalities, you "owe" Cleveland and the Cavaliers something. You "owe" them a career. You "owe" them the best years of your professional life. The reason you "owe" them? Well, that's where things get a little foggy, but it seems most believe your loyalty should simply stem from your place of birth: you were born in Cleveland so, I guess, you should die in Cleveland (at least career-wise, anyway).
Brush these idiotic rumblings aside as you pursue your goals.
Look, you don't owe anyone anything, other than yourself. You have been in Cleveland for seven years. In that time, you have played with heart and soul and taken your team to heights they wouldn't have even been able to imagine had you not been on the roster. Rarely, considering the amount of money you athletes make, does a player give a city and a franchise more than he gets but, in your case, it's the truth. In the annals of sports, you are probably the most underpaid athlete that has ever taken a breath, considering what you have done for that town.
You played all seven years of your contract. You didn't "demand" anything. You didn't force the team to hirer or firer any coaches based on your preferences. You didn't "demand" they get player X or Y because you guys were buddies. You didn't spend your time throwing your general manager of owner under the bus, even when they made obviously bad moves that hindered your ability to win.
You were the best show on earth for seven years in Cleveland and, not once did you demand to leave.
You have fullfilled everything required and, now, you can leave with your head held high.
The truth is, Lebron, Cleveland has already essentially made your choice for you. Had they surrounded you with another superstar player and a roster of winners, then your exit would be more difficult. Then, it would appear as if your were abandoning winning for big-city glory. Then, it would truly appear that championships took a back seat to image in your world.
Yet, in seven years the Cavs have failed to even remotely develop a roster worthy of your talents. Look at the teams still competeing for a championship, Lebron: the Celtics, the team that just beat you, has three hall of fame players (Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, and Paul Pierce), a rising superstar in Rajon Rondo, and gutty players like Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis to even out the roster. Your buddy Kobe Bryant will play the rest of his years with All-Star caliber players Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum, not to mention talented players like Sheldon Brown and a terrific veteran point guard in Derek Fisher.
Orlando? Talent oozes out of that team, so much so that they cruised through their first round with their best player, Dwight Howard, essentially a non-factor. And Steve Nash has Amare Stoudemire, Jason Richardson, and Grant Hill to back him up. Now, for fun, take a look at your roster, this juggernaut of a team the Cavaliers have surrounded you with: the rumor of Shaquille O'Neill, the overrated Antwan Jamison, and Mo Williams, who wouldn't start for any of the teams I mentioned previously. Those are your top options. That is the "winning" group this franchise put around you. Not exactly the 1986 Celtics or 1988 Lakers, huh?
Look, you won 67 games this year, mainly because you were completely and utterly brilliant each and every game. That record fooled a lot of people into believeing that there was some talent around you, but I doubt it conned you the way it did so many media types. You had to have known that once you ran into a really good team, you were toast, right? You had to have known that Mo Williams wasn't gonna do it for you in a big spot, right?
That's why it is time to leave, my friend. That's why the Cavs, with seven years of "plugging holes" instead of developing a champion has all but asked you to leave. They haven't surrounded you with a team, they've surrounded you with a bunch of guys they expect you to make better than they really are. They've surrounded you, for seven straight years, with a cast that can't stand on its own two feet unless you are behind them, holding them up. They haven't handed you the reigns to a Ferrari, they have given you the keys to a Gremlin and asked that you turn it into a Bentley. Then, when you don't, no one comes running to your defense to say "hold on, now, this guy is as good as it gets and we stand behind him."
You don't owe Cleveland anything, Lebron, they owed you, and they failed to do anything other than act like they were putting together a great team.
If you're going to stay, you have to ask yourself whether you think it is going to get any better. Is this team going to bring in that second gun? I doubt it. How can they. They have already locked themselves (and, subsequently you) into a bunch of bad, inconceived contracts all in an effort to throw enough garbage at the wall to see if something sticks. It hasn't, and it isn't going to next year or the year after.
Kevin Garnett the other night talked about your youth. He talked about how, had he to do it over, he would probably have moved on from Minnesota sooner. In other words, he wouldn't have allowed some antiquated sense of "loyalty" to all but ruin his career. Now, towards the end of his career, KG has gotten redemption, but the best years were spent trying desperately to singlehandedly bring another down-on-its-luck city at the time, Minnesota, something to cheer about. It shouldn't have been his cross to bear and it shouldn't be yours, either.
You have options. You have tremendous options. You have the chance to determine the course of your career. Don't let others decide what you should or shouldn't do, when they probably wouldn't adhere to their own advice in a similar situation. Listen to KG. Understand that this is your time. Understand that this is a chance for you to make your mark. You can do that in New York, which will hand you the keys to one of the flagship organizations in the NBA, and all but let you pick your roster for next year and beyond. You can go to the Nets, who are about to bring professional sports back to the burrow of Brooklyn, and who has a cavalcade of talent either on the roster or coming via the draft and free agency. You can go to Chicago and join Derek Rose and Loul Deng and perhaps another great free agent player. You can instantly walk on to a team next year that has more talent and more ability than the Cavs did this year, and you can hitch your wagon to a franchise that is willing to spend (over the cap) as much as is needed to bring you the rings you crave.
Go to New York, Lebron. Go to New Jersey/Brooklyn, or to Chicago, or even to Miami with your buddhy Dwayne Wade. Only, don't let a city or a media tie you to Cleveland. It's your life, my friend and your career. Don't let both die there.
Monday, May 10
Realignment? Some things make sense..........some things don't
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
