Rockies: The biggest news is the trade of Shawn Chacon to the New York Yankees. The Rockies got a pair of double-A pitchers out of the deal. The question the article I linked to posed was, doesn't this contradict our build-from-within philosophy? Let me be the first to say: what a stupid question. Who cares? Dan O'Dowd's response was that it strengthens our youth movement.
Is that going to be the explanation for every Rockies move, and for how much longer? Not that I've lost patience in this specific plan, any more than that I never believed in it, but younger is not always the same as better. I mean, Chacon's 27, so he ought to have some decent years left. How far in the future are we building for?
More to the point, how far out of his prime will Todd Helton be by the time these guys are ready to contribute? I think he'll be the last superstar we have for a while at this rate, so we ought to make use of him. It'll be at least a few years before these guys can be counted on to pitch consistently, won't it? (They are, after all, Double-A pitchers the Yankees were willing to part with to get their hands on Shawn Chacon.)
I don't know anything about the younger guys, so I'd have a hard time evaluating this trade strictly on its baseball merits. I can see why the Rockies would get frustrated with and trade Chacon-not that he's a terrible pitcher, but in sort of that Jake Plummer fashion where he shows flashes of brilliance mixed in with his mediocrity.
Nuggets: The biggest Nuggets news this week, of course, was the news that coach George Karl was diagnosed with prostate cancer around the start of the Spurs series. He underwent successful surgery Thursday. I just hope I didn't say anything overboard-mean about his coaching at the time.
He's said to have a good shot at a quick recovery and should be able to coach this season.
Broncos (new and improved website): Yee haw, training camp is upon us. If anyone cares, all the draft picks signed on time, easily the dumbest "story" I have to endure every year. Maurice Clarett signed a Ricky Williams-esque deal, which is to say he's not making much money (the minimum this year) unless he plays and plays well. Some sports fans think that's the way it ought to be, but I don't really begrudge the guys their money. Don't worry about him: Maurice has a few years left on his Ohio State deal anyway. (All right, that's enough.)
Anyway, if Clarett does dominate, he can clean up under this contract. And he apparently has no doubts he will. As his agent told the Rocky Mountain News in a very apt comparison, "They thought Christopher Columbus was crazy, too."
The Post ran an nearly-informative story today about Jake Plummer: "Third year critical for Plummer." First of all, wasn't last year supposed to be the critical year?
And second of all, shouldn't that article be about Champ Bailey? Yes, Champ ended up in the Pro Bowl, which all voters take very seriously, but he also had a great view of some spectacular opposing touchdowns last year. To me, he has the most to prove of any Bronco this season.
Anyway, back to Plummer: who knows how he'll do this year? His first season here, he was fantastic if not quite in perfect health. Last year, he turned the ball over like crazy. What do you guys think he'll do? And why don't we have a reliable backup yet?
Friday, July 29, 2005
Monday, July 25, 2005
Embrace the Star System
Last week one of my roommates and I were debating the impact of the loss of Larry Brown on the Pistons' hopes next season.
My roommate thought Detroit would fall far, finishing no higher than fifth in the East, a number I'm certain he plucked out of thin air.
I asked him, who's better? Miami? Who else?
My roommate's a delusional Nets fan, so he threw New Jersey on the table, which I of course consider ridiculous. (He's also a huge Angels and Raiders supporter, so you may correctly guess we don't agree on a lot sports-wise.) Why New Jersey? Well, they still have Kidd and Vincent, but they also added Shareef Abdur-Rahim, whom my roommate calls a 20-and-10 guy who never played on a winning team.
I inquired, whose fault is that?
My roommate later corrected himself and said Abdur-Rahim is a 20-and-8 guy, which is close enough to true, but even further illustrates the point: if he was a better rebounder, maybe his teams would win a little more often.
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the New Jersey Nets and their playoff prospects next season.
No, I'm here to talk about superstars. (Meaning Abdur-Rahim no longer factors into the discussion.)
Sports are all about teamwork, you say. Parents put their kids on teams to teach them about unselfishness and working together. Or to learn how to suck it up when you have to do things you hate, such as when my parents kept putting me on soccer teams instead in a sport I actually wanted to play, like football.
Yet for all the virtuous lessons, and especially at the youth level, the team with the best individual player is almost always going to win.
And if you're the best player on your team, and your team can't cut it, well, it's probably your fault. It's not that simple, of course, but it's often close, especially in football and basketball.
There's a reason superstars get the big money. Yes, they put fans in the seats. But even more, it's the promise of winning that packs the house.
Let's face it, championship teams are almost always defined by that one truly great player. Shaq. Michael Jordan. John Elway. Tom Brady. Ray Lewis. Tim Duncan. Joe Montana. Stockton. Oh, whoops, scratch that last one.
If you remember my earlier meniton of Larry Brown before all this meandering, you're probably thinking, what a second, what about the Detroit Pistons? They won it all in 2004, and they did it with a team, not as stars, thereby proving once and for all that a great team beats individual talent every day of the week.
Yeah.
First of all, the Pistons are the exception that proves the rule. No, I don't know have any idea what that means. But I don't see how one fluke year-a series the Lakers easily should have won, had Kobe kept his ego in check and let Shaq shoot a little more-disproves most of basketball history to that point.
People say the same thing about the Patriots and their three-out-of-four Super Bowls run, but that's even more ridiculous, because the Patriots are actually loaded with individual talent. Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL, hands down. Corey Dillon has long been one of the league's very best running backs. And Tedy Bruschi, last year, was probably the best linebacker in the world-and he certainly was the best come playoff time.
Don't forget Ty Law.
Of course, not every great player wins it all every time. There are a lot more factors that go into winning-quality of the supporting cast, quality of the opposition, injuries, age, et cetera.
But clutch performance isn't limited to the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals. Often, a player provides glimpses of his greatness with triumphs in earlier postseason rounds.
A good local example is John Elway. First, let me state my completely unbiased opinion that he is the greatest quarterback of all time.
With that out of the way, he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls in his early years and lost three times. He lost to absolutely loaded New York and San Francisco teams, and also to Washington, which had a fantastic if occasionally forgotten run. But he did get to the Super Bowl; this despite playing on a team that featured offensive weaponry like Sammy Winder and the Three Amigos.
At the end of his career, he got back to the game twice and won both. At the time, a lot of the credit was given to Terrell Davis and even more to Mike Shanahan, because you see it was the coaching that finally got Elway over the top.
Six years and no playoff wins later for Shanahan, you don't hear that argument much anymore.
Perhaps fans and analysts should have considered his entire body of work a little more closely before labelling him a choker. In his fourth season, he led "The Drive"; clearly not the work of someone who can't handle pressure.
Let me reiterate: this was in his fourth season (and I'm aware this column is rapidly devolving into Elway hero-worship). To put that into perspective, do you think David Carr will save his team's Super Bowl hopes with a late game-saving drive on the road this season?
But Elway did just fine in playoff games early in his career, and as soon as the odds weren't overwhelmingly stacked against him, he won it all.
This theory doesn't hold for baseball, by the way, mostly because it's such a democratic sport. Forget empirical evidence, I've yet to collect any compelling anecdotal evidence that baseball players make each other better, except possibly for a great pitcher who can pitch a lot of innings or in very tight situations and take the pressure off the rest of the staff-a guy like Curt Schilling or a young Mariano Rivera, for example.
How well a guy handles the pressure doesn't seem to change over time. So allow me to make some snap judgements on famous players.
Can they handle the pressure or can't they?
Here we go:
Brett Favre: Favre hold the record for MVP awards and won a Super Bowl early in his career. But the last few years he has put up some horrific playoff games. He's not winning another title with that team, but I'm not sure he would on any but the most stacked defensive squad.
Tom Brady: Just because he's the best doesn't make him infallible-don't forget that interception he threw in the end zone late in the Super Bowl against the Panthers. But his postseason record is perfect, and even though that can't last and he may never win another Super Bowl (nothing against him, I just appreciate that it's an incredibly hard thing to do), expect him to put up many more clutch performances.
Peyton Manning: The anti-Brady. King of the meaningless regular season statistics; lowly pauper in the playoffs-unless you think forty-nine touchdown passes while running up the score is some kind of impressive accomplishment. And his three playoff wins have come up against pathetic competition: two Broncos teams with serious issues and the 2003 Kansas City Chiefs, who practically begged you to score so they could get the ball back.
Michael Vick: Here's a man who is always a) oversimplified and b) called "electric". He's either the worst passer in the game, or the most amazing talent ever to grace it, instead of a more fair and true middle ground of both. He's won his first playoff game both years he's gone to the postseason, only to lose to the Eagles each time. As overrated as I think he sometimes is (come on, do announcers have to talk about him during games the Falcons aren't even a part of?), I am impressed with his win at Lambeau in the snow. And the Falcons have been competitive whenever he's started. I'll label him a winner for now.
Donovan McNabb: A bit of a tough one. He led his teams deep into the playoffs very early in his career. However, his innacuracy borders on comical, and his inability to notice time running out in the Super Bowl plants him firmly on solid choking ground.
Kevin Garnett: Another tough one. Puts up massive numbers every year, always takes responsibility, seems to be a nice, stand-up guy, and was stabbed in the back by selfish teammates last year). But it took him forever to win a playoff series (yes, his team was often the lower seed, but I say again: whose fault is that?), and he hasn't any memorable postseason efforts. I'd say he's more likely to tense up and misfire under pressure, but he's the one guy I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.
Jason Kidd: Give me a break. Wins close playoff games against horrific Eastern conference teams with no backbone, then falls apart in the Finals faster than a political debate with Alex Sudreth. Sorry, but he chokes.
Tim Duncan: One relatively bad Finals can't undo years of performance. He'll come through in the future.
If you disagree or want my opinion on anyone else, go to the comments, of course. And I apologize for not having that Broncos/Rockies rundown last week, but a) I had a four-hour meeting Friday and was pretty much spent afterwards, and b) nothing particularly cool happened last week anyway.
My roommate thought Detroit would fall far, finishing no higher than fifth in the East, a number I'm certain he plucked out of thin air.
I asked him, who's better? Miami? Who else?
My roommate's a delusional Nets fan, so he threw New Jersey on the table, which I of course consider ridiculous. (He's also a huge Angels and Raiders supporter, so you may correctly guess we don't agree on a lot sports-wise.) Why New Jersey? Well, they still have Kidd and Vincent, but they also added Shareef Abdur-Rahim, whom my roommate calls a 20-and-10 guy who never played on a winning team.
I inquired, whose fault is that?
My roommate later corrected himself and said Abdur-Rahim is a 20-and-8 guy, which is close enough to true, but even further illustrates the point: if he was a better rebounder, maybe his teams would win a little more often.
Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the New Jersey Nets and their playoff prospects next season.
No, I'm here to talk about superstars. (Meaning Abdur-Rahim no longer factors into the discussion.)
Sports are all about teamwork, you say. Parents put their kids on teams to teach them about unselfishness and working together. Or to learn how to suck it up when you have to do things you hate, such as when my parents kept putting me on soccer teams instead in a sport I actually wanted to play, like football.
Yet for all the virtuous lessons, and especially at the youth level, the team with the best individual player is almost always going to win.
And if you're the best player on your team, and your team can't cut it, well, it's probably your fault. It's not that simple, of course, but it's often close, especially in football and basketball.
There's a reason superstars get the big money. Yes, they put fans in the seats. But even more, it's the promise of winning that packs the house.
Let's face it, championship teams are almost always defined by that one truly great player. Shaq. Michael Jordan. John Elway. Tom Brady. Ray Lewis. Tim Duncan. Joe Montana. Stockton. Oh, whoops, scratch that last one.
If you remember my earlier meniton of Larry Brown before all this meandering, you're probably thinking, what a second, what about the Detroit Pistons? They won it all in 2004, and they did it with a team, not as stars, thereby proving once and for all that a great team beats individual talent every day of the week.
Yeah.
First of all, the Pistons are the exception that proves the rule. No, I don't know have any idea what that means. But I don't see how one fluke year-a series the Lakers easily should have won, had Kobe kept his ego in check and let Shaq shoot a little more-disproves most of basketball history to that point.
People say the same thing about the Patriots and their three-out-of-four Super Bowls run, but that's even more ridiculous, because the Patriots are actually loaded with individual talent. Tom Brady is the best quarterback in the NFL, hands down. Corey Dillon has long been one of the league's very best running backs. And Tedy Bruschi, last year, was probably the best linebacker in the world-and he certainly was the best come playoff time.
Don't forget Ty Law.
Of course, not every great player wins it all every time. There are a lot more factors that go into winning-quality of the supporting cast, quality of the opposition, injuries, age, et cetera.
But clutch performance isn't limited to the Super Bowl or the NBA Finals. Often, a player provides glimpses of his greatness with triumphs in earlier postseason rounds.
A good local example is John Elway. First, let me state my completely unbiased opinion that he is the greatest quarterback of all time.
With that out of the way, he took the Broncos to three Super Bowls in his early years and lost three times. He lost to absolutely loaded New York and San Francisco teams, and also to Washington, which had a fantastic if occasionally forgotten run. But he did get to the Super Bowl; this despite playing on a team that featured offensive weaponry like Sammy Winder and the Three Amigos.
At the end of his career, he got back to the game twice and won both. At the time, a lot of the credit was given to Terrell Davis and even more to Mike Shanahan, because you see it was the coaching that finally got Elway over the top.
Six years and no playoff wins later for Shanahan, you don't hear that argument much anymore.
Perhaps fans and analysts should have considered his entire body of work a little more closely before labelling him a choker. In his fourth season, he led "The Drive"; clearly not the work of someone who can't handle pressure.
Let me reiterate: this was in his fourth season (and I'm aware this column is rapidly devolving into Elway hero-worship). To put that into perspective, do you think David Carr will save his team's Super Bowl hopes with a late game-saving drive on the road this season?
But Elway did just fine in playoff games early in his career, and as soon as the odds weren't overwhelmingly stacked against him, he won it all.
This theory doesn't hold for baseball, by the way, mostly because it's such a democratic sport. Forget empirical evidence, I've yet to collect any compelling anecdotal evidence that baseball players make each other better, except possibly for a great pitcher who can pitch a lot of innings or in very tight situations and take the pressure off the rest of the staff-a guy like Curt Schilling or a young Mariano Rivera, for example.
How well a guy handles the pressure doesn't seem to change over time. So allow me to make some snap judgements on famous players.
Can they handle the pressure or can't they?
Here we go:
Brett Favre: Favre hold the record for MVP awards and won a Super Bowl early in his career. But the last few years he has put up some horrific playoff games. He's not winning another title with that team, but I'm not sure he would on any but the most stacked defensive squad.
Tom Brady: Just because he's the best doesn't make him infallible-don't forget that interception he threw in the end zone late in the Super Bowl against the Panthers. But his postseason record is perfect, and even though that can't last and he may never win another Super Bowl (nothing against him, I just appreciate that it's an incredibly hard thing to do), expect him to put up many more clutch performances.
Peyton Manning: The anti-Brady. King of the meaningless regular season statistics; lowly pauper in the playoffs-unless you think forty-nine touchdown passes while running up the score is some kind of impressive accomplishment. And his three playoff wins have come up against pathetic competition: two Broncos teams with serious issues and the 2003 Kansas City Chiefs, who practically begged you to score so they could get the ball back.
Michael Vick: Here's a man who is always a) oversimplified and b) called "electric". He's either the worst passer in the game, or the most amazing talent ever to grace it, instead of a more fair and true middle ground of both. He's won his first playoff game both years he's gone to the postseason, only to lose to the Eagles each time. As overrated as I think he sometimes is (come on, do announcers have to talk about him during games the Falcons aren't even a part of?), I am impressed with his win at Lambeau in the snow. And the Falcons have been competitive whenever he's started. I'll label him a winner for now.
Donovan McNabb: A bit of a tough one. He led his teams deep into the playoffs very early in his career. However, his innacuracy borders on comical, and his inability to notice time running out in the Super Bowl plants him firmly on solid choking ground.
Kevin Garnett: Another tough one. Puts up massive numbers every year, always takes responsibility, seems to be a nice, stand-up guy, and was stabbed in the back by selfish teammates last year). But it took him forever to win a playoff series (yes, his team was often the lower seed, but I say again: whose fault is that?), and he hasn't any memorable postseason efforts. I'd say he's more likely to tense up and misfire under pressure, but he's the one guy I'd like to give the benefit of the doubt.
Jason Kidd: Give me a break. Wins close playoff games against horrific Eastern conference teams with no backbone, then falls apart in the Finals faster than a political debate with Alex Sudreth. Sorry, but he chokes.
Tim Duncan: One relatively bad Finals can't undo years of performance. He'll come through in the future.
If you disagree or want my opinion on anyone else, go to the comments, of course. And I apologize for not having that Broncos/Rockies rundown last week, but a) I had a four-hour meeting Friday and was pretty much spent afterwards, and b) nothing particularly cool happened last week anyway.
Friday, July 15, 2005
The Weekly...Denver...Sports...Thing
The big news in Denver-area sports, in case you missed it...
Last Friday: Rockies drop a thriller to San Diego, 12-2. Padres pour salt on the wound by bringing in Brian Falkenborg to pitch the last two innings. The Rockies do not score, and Falky drops his ERA from a perfect 10 to 8.18.
Saturday: Rockies win first 1-0 game in Coors Field history over Padres, a fact SportsCenter beat to death trying to make the recap interesting.
Sunday: San Diego exacts revenge, a dish best served cold, with an 8-5 topping of the Rox. Todd Helton goes 2-for-3 with his tenth homer to continue his relatively hot recent hitting.
Tuesday: Brian Fuentes pitches a scoreless...wait, make that doesn't pitch a scoreless anything in the All-Star game. Didn't see that coming.
Wednesday: The Denver Post runs an outstanding article, "Depth makes Middlebrooks expendable". It's unfortunate that headlines have to be crammed into such a specific space; the Post had to reject the original and preferred, "Complete Absence of Talent makes Middlebrooks expendable." Middlebrooks (Willie Middlebrooks, the former first-rounder who finally "broke through" last year as a nickelback) was arrested earlier this year, too, I don't remember hearing that. Bravo.
Also, in a move that shocked absolutely nobody, a recruiter/fall guy pled guilty to...read the article, it has to do with the CU sex scandal thing; I long ago lost interest.
Thursday: The Broncos actually trade Middlebrooks to the 49ers for defensive end John Engelberger, who is okay (six sacks last season). The stockpiling of mediocre DLs continues. Not that Middlebrooks is great, but the front four (or three, if rumors of a 3-4 switch stick) is now loaded with nobodies, and the secondary is thinner than Julius Hodge. Which isn't a big deal; we haven't been knocked out of the postseason by a good passing team in literally months.
Tonight: Jason Jennings takes the hill, as the Rockies put their sparkling 7-33 road mark on the line in Cincinnati.
Last Friday: Rockies drop a thriller to San Diego, 12-2. Padres pour salt on the wound by bringing in Brian Falkenborg to pitch the last two innings. The Rockies do not score, and Falky drops his ERA from a perfect 10 to 8.18.
Saturday: Rockies win first 1-0 game in Coors Field history over Padres, a fact SportsCenter beat to death trying to make the recap interesting.
Sunday: San Diego exacts revenge, a dish best served cold, with an 8-5 topping of the Rox. Todd Helton goes 2-for-3 with his tenth homer to continue his relatively hot recent hitting.
Tuesday: Brian Fuentes pitches a scoreless...wait, make that doesn't pitch a scoreless anything in the All-Star game. Didn't see that coming.
Wednesday: The Denver Post runs an outstanding article, "Depth makes Middlebrooks expendable". It's unfortunate that headlines have to be crammed into such a specific space; the Post had to reject the original and preferred, "Complete Absence of Talent makes Middlebrooks expendable." Middlebrooks (Willie Middlebrooks, the former first-rounder who finally "broke through" last year as a nickelback) was arrested earlier this year, too, I don't remember hearing that. Bravo.
Also, in a move that shocked absolutely nobody, a recruiter/fall guy pled guilty to...read the article, it has to do with the CU sex scandal thing; I long ago lost interest.
Thursday: The Broncos actually trade Middlebrooks to the 49ers for defensive end John Engelberger, who is okay (six sacks last season). The stockpiling of mediocre DLs continues. Not that Middlebrooks is great, but the front four (or three, if rumors of a 3-4 switch stick) is now loaded with nobodies, and the secondary is thinner than Julius Hodge. Which isn't a big deal; we haven't been knocked out of the postseason by a good passing team in literally months.
Tonight: Jason Jennings takes the hill, as the Rockies put their sparkling 7-33 road mark on the line in Cincinnati.
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Rockies Coverage (You're Welcome, Pugs)
Yesterday the Rockies made some big trades. Well, some trades, how's that. Here we go:
Colorado sent Preston Wilson and cash to Washington for pitcher Zach Day, outfielder J.J. Davis, and either a player to be named later or cash. (Wonder which one we'll take.)
To Oakland we sent pitchers Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick for outfielder Eric Byrnes and minor-league middle infielder Omar Quintanilla.
The two biggest names in these trades are Wilson, who leads the Rockies in home runs and RBI, and Byrnes, who, at least statistically, is a lot more comparable to Wilson than I would have thought.
This year the 30-year-old Wilson is hitting .258, getting on base at a .322 clip, and slugging .491. Byrnes is 29, hitting .266, OBP of .336, and slugging .474. Pretty comparable. And their career numbers aren't so different, either: .265/.333/.481 for Wilson; .270/.336/.462 for Byrnes.
Which is not to suggest that the two players are neck-and-neck in all-around skill. Wilson plays centerfield, which is much more valuable than Byrnes in left, and possesses some speed on the basepaths...but wait. While Byrnes hasn't stolen a ton of bases, he does steal at an incredible success rate (85%, but just 35/41 for his career).
Wilson does have a big edge in experience, playing in almost twice as many career games, and he has put together a few impressive-looking seasons. Before last year Wilson seemed to be more durable as well. In terms of batting statistics, it's worth pointing out that Byrnes has at times been platooned, and thus his numbers may slightly overstate his ability.
Of course, only fans care about talent.
We all know that one number matters to the Rockies management, and that's where Wilson has a huge edge: he's cashing checks for $12.5 million this year, while Byrnes is compensated to the tune of a mere $2.2 million.
While Wilson is, in my mind, clearly the better player, the Rockies would actually be better off employing Byrnes at his salary and then investing the $10.3 million elsewhere to improve the team, because any edge Wilson provides is not worth ten million dollars. That would be a brilliant move (by Colorado baseball standards), as opposed to what the Rockies will choose, which is to make half of a good move and pocket the change.
You don't have to read the news to know that's what will happen.
But what the heck. In the aforelinked article, Rox general manager Dan O'Dowd said, "We believe we've added some good, young talent that will help us in our rebuilding process."
And later: "We love what Preston has done for us, but he more than likely wasn't going to be a part of our rebuilding process."
By all means, sacrifice the team for the "rebuilding process". No wonder the man can't get fired-he's the perfect mouthpiece for bargain-basement ownership.
Of course, Wilson and Byrnes weren't traded straight-up or even involved in the same trade. The Byrnes deal makes me nervous because we dealt with Oakland, which has something like a five hundred-fold advantage in terms of front office brainpower.
We gave the A's the two pitchers for Byrnes and Quintanilla, who's shown a little bit of power in his time in the minors and is considered one of Oakland's top prospects. However, I'm reminded of when the Rockies traded to the A's for minor league outfielder Mario Encarnacion. Encarnacion was an intriguing 20-year-old five-tool prospect. I think the trade happened around the time of 9/11, because Encarnacion had to produce a birth certificate for some reason not long after and it turned out he had about half a dozen birthdays unaccounted for. Thus he immediately went from prospect to never-was.
I don't think Quintanilla's necessarily lying about his age; I just question any young star Oakland would give up on.
To Oakland we sent the pitchers Kennedy, who was solid last year, awful this year, and young enough to turn it around, and Witasick, who has been a superb reliever. But we got Byrnes; as long as Kennedy doesn't improve immediately, at least we didn't get completely shafted.
As for the rest of the Preston Wilson deal, I don't know why we gave up both him and cash, or rather why we're paying $3.5 million of what's left of his salary. Why do we get rid of guys for financial reasons, and then still agree to pay a lot of the money? Seems kinda pointless.
Anyway, we got J.J. Davis, who in his limited opportunites has tried his best to prove he absolutely cannot hit (.179 in 67 career games), and Zach Day. What's interesting to me is what O'Dowd said about him in the Denver Post:
"He's a guy I have liked all along. He has a tremendous groundball-flyball ratio similar to Aaron Cook."
That's funny to me, because the first thing I noticed about his statistics was his groundball to fly ball ratio. Not in the way Dan thought of it, though. Day's has dropped from 3.14 in 2002 to 2.72 the next year to 2.09 to 1.55 this season.
That's a guy we liked all along? A guy who gets progressively worse at his bread and butter?
A guy who's turning into a fly-ball pitcher...moving to Coors...
Oh, and here's another fun fact: he's coming off a broken arm-actually a hairline fracture in his throwing arm.
In other words, the official Hole Punch prediction: he's going to get shelled.
Colorado sent Preston Wilson and cash to Washington for pitcher Zach Day, outfielder J.J. Davis, and either a player to be named later or cash. (Wonder which one we'll take.)
To Oakland we sent pitchers Joe Kennedy and Jay Witasick for outfielder Eric Byrnes and minor-league middle infielder Omar Quintanilla.
The two biggest names in these trades are Wilson, who leads the Rockies in home runs and RBI, and Byrnes, who, at least statistically, is a lot more comparable to Wilson than I would have thought.
This year the 30-year-old Wilson is hitting .258, getting on base at a .322 clip, and slugging .491. Byrnes is 29, hitting .266, OBP of .336, and slugging .474. Pretty comparable. And their career numbers aren't so different, either: .265/.333/.481 for Wilson; .270/.336/.462 for Byrnes.
Which is not to suggest that the two players are neck-and-neck in all-around skill. Wilson plays centerfield, which is much more valuable than Byrnes in left, and possesses some speed on the basepaths...but wait. While Byrnes hasn't stolen a ton of bases, he does steal at an incredible success rate (85%, but just 35/41 for his career).
Wilson does have a big edge in experience, playing in almost twice as many career games, and he has put together a few impressive-looking seasons. Before last year Wilson seemed to be more durable as well. In terms of batting statistics, it's worth pointing out that Byrnes has at times been platooned, and thus his numbers may slightly overstate his ability.
Of course, only fans care about talent.
We all know that one number matters to the Rockies management, and that's where Wilson has a huge edge: he's cashing checks for $12.5 million this year, while Byrnes is compensated to the tune of a mere $2.2 million.
While Wilson is, in my mind, clearly the better player, the Rockies would actually be better off employing Byrnes at his salary and then investing the $10.3 million elsewhere to improve the team, because any edge Wilson provides is not worth ten million dollars. That would be a brilliant move (by Colorado baseball standards), as opposed to what the Rockies will choose, which is to make half of a good move and pocket the change.
You don't have to read the news to know that's what will happen.
But what the heck. In the aforelinked article, Rox general manager Dan O'Dowd said, "We believe we've added some good, young talent that will help us in our rebuilding process."
And later: "We love what Preston has done for us, but he more than likely wasn't going to be a part of our rebuilding process."
By all means, sacrifice the team for the "rebuilding process". No wonder the man can't get fired-he's the perfect mouthpiece for bargain-basement ownership.
Of course, Wilson and Byrnes weren't traded straight-up or even involved in the same trade. The Byrnes deal makes me nervous because we dealt with Oakland, which has something like a five hundred-fold advantage in terms of front office brainpower.
We gave the A's the two pitchers for Byrnes and Quintanilla, who's shown a little bit of power in his time in the minors and is considered one of Oakland's top prospects. However, I'm reminded of when the Rockies traded to the A's for minor league outfielder Mario Encarnacion. Encarnacion was an intriguing 20-year-old five-tool prospect. I think the trade happened around the time of 9/11, because Encarnacion had to produce a birth certificate for some reason not long after and it turned out he had about half a dozen birthdays unaccounted for. Thus he immediately went from prospect to never-was.
I don't think Quintanilla's necessarily lying about his age; I just question any young star Oakland would give up on.
To Oakland we sent the pitchers Kennedy, who was solid last year, awful this year, and young enough to turn it around, and Witasick, who has been a superb reliever. But we got Byrnes; as long as Kennedy doesn't improve immediately, at least we didn't get completely shafted.
As for the rest of the Preston Wilson deal, I don't know why we gave up both him and cash, or rather why we're paying $3.5 million of what's left of his salary. Why do we get rid of guys for financial reasons, and then still agree to pay a lot of the money? Seems kinda pointless.
Anyway, we got J.J. Davis, who in his limited opportunites has tried his best to prove he absolutely cannot hit (.179 in 67 career games), and Zach Day. What's interesting to me is what O'Dowd said about him in the Denver Post:
"He's a guy I have liked all along. He has a tremendous groundball-flyball ratio similar to Aaron Cook."
That's funny to me, because the first thing I noticed about his statistics was his groundball to fly ball ratio. Not in the way Dan thought of it, though. Day's has dropped from 3.14 in 2002 to 2.72 the next year to 2.09 to 1.55 this season.
That's a guy we liked all along? A guy who gets progressively worse at his bread and butter?
A guy who's turning into a fly-ball pitcher...moving to Coors...
Oh, and here's another fun fact: he's coming off a broken arm-actually a hairline fracture in his throwing arm.
In other words, the official Hole Punch prediction: he's going to get shelled.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Cheney going to prison?
I know this is a sports blog, but I hope you'll bear with me if I depart from the usual topics today to discuss something almost related.
Golf.
Now, you might not know this yet, but there's apparently an up-and-coming young female golfer named Michelle Wie who aspires to play on the pro men's tour and can, at least theoretically, win a spot at the Masters by winning the men's U.S. Amateur Public Links this week.
First off, let me start by saying: fantastic! Anything with the potential of upsetting stuffy golf traditionalists is fine by me.
However.
I am quite bored with the whole women-competing-with-the-men thing, especially since it's beaten to death before any of the women have actually slain the pack of snarling men-folk. And I think we all know why that is.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see Michelle Wie miraculously (and it's going to take a miracle) qualify for the Masters, and then win it, partly because she's a woman, and partly because she's so young. Now that would be a compelling story. Yes, Augusta National as a private club is allowed to discriminate based on gender; I just find the ongoing decision to do so stupid, just like the rest of golf.
(I know, that's raising the level of discourse into the Sudrethian stratosphere; however, I am bitter at the entire sport due to my recent purchase of Tiger Woods for the PlayStation 2, which has completely obliterated any ability I've developed to control my temper.)
And don't lump me in with players like Danny Green, one of her competitors this week, who told the Associated Press yesterday, "I don't think she should be here. I think she should play in the women's tournaments because they don't let the men play in women's tournaments."
Well stated, moron. Every single time a female athlete or golfer goes against the men, some wise guy has to bring this up. Yes, it's true that a man is not allowed to enter an LPGA tour event (due to tour bylaws) and that a woman can at least give it a go on the men's tour, but we all understand the reasons for this, right? Men are, as a general rule, physically stronger and thus better equipped for sports; I don't see the need to elaborate or point this out every time. While women will probably never dominate the PGA tour, there are many men capable of making a complete mockery of women's golf.
Anyway, it seems like women going against men is the big thing these days, especially in "sports" like golf and auto racing where the gender gap seems to make less of a difference.
Take Danica Patrick. After she didn't win the Indianapolis 500 (but finished an impressive-for-a-rookie fourth), she was on the cover of Sports Illustrated with the tagline: "The Start of Something Big."
Ha.
Unless the "something big" refers to the amount of coverage rammed down our collective throats, instead of her career, this is absurd. It's impossible for her profile to get any bigger than it was that week, even if she wins the race next year.
Or do you know someone who actually watched the Indy 500?
Same goes for Annika Sorenstam, occasionally said to be the world's greatest golfer. Um, no. No one would ever call Lisa Leslie the world's best basketball player, so why do we have to delude ourselves in other arenas?
Or go back to Wie, an amazing talent who-again, at 15-was tied for the lead in the women's U.S. Open going into the last day just a few weeks ago. And she came pretty close to becoming the first woman in however long to make the cut at a men's tournament. But while I know and care little for the "sport", making the cut sounds like a far cry from winning the tournament, doesn't it?
Even though I think auto racing is lame, and even men's golf is stealth to my radar, I think it would be amazing for a woman to come in and actually win the events. The key word being "win".
I know there's nothing better to discuss in sports right now (trust me, I'm talking about talking about it), but can we at least hold off on the coronations until a coup occurs?
Finally, a programming note: I think I will make the local Denver sports round-up a weekly event, probably to run every Friday. Unless nothing happens, in which case we'll discuss American foreign policy in the comments section. Thanks for your time.
Golf.
Now, you might not know this yet, but there's apparently an up-and-coming young female golfer named Michelle Wie who aspires to play on the pro men's tour and can, at least theoretically, win a spot at the Masters by winning the men's U.S. Amateur Public Links this week.
First off, let me start by saying: fantastic! Anything with the potential of upsetting stuffy golf traditionalists is fine by me.
However.
I am quite bored with the whole women-competing-with-the-men thing, especially since it's beaten to death before any of the women have actually slain the pack of snarling men-folk. And I think we all know why that is.
Don't get me wrong. I would love to see Michelle Wie miraculously (and it's going to take a miracle) qualify for the Masters, and then win it, partly because she's a woman, and partly because she's so young. Now that would be a compelling story. Yes, Augusta National as a private club is allowed to discriminate based on gender; I just find the ongoing decision to do so stupid, just like the rest of golf.
(I know, that's raising the level of discourse into the Sudrethian stratosphere; however, I am bitter at the entire sport due to my recent purchase of Tiger Woods for the PlayStation 2, which has completely obliterated any ability I've developed to control my temper.)
And don't lump me in with players like Danny Green, one of her competitors this week, who told the Associated Press yesterday, "I don't think she should be here. I think she should play in the women's tournaments because they don't let the men play in women's tournaments."
Well stated, moron. Every single time a female athlete or golfer goes against the men, some wise guy has to bring this up. Yes, it's true that a man is not allowed to enter an LPGA tour event (due to tour bylaws) and that a woman can at least give it a go on the men's tour, but we all understand the reasons for this, right? Men are, as a general rule, physically stronger and thus better equipped for sports; I don't see the need to elaborate or point this out every time. While women will probably never dominate the PGA tour, there are many men capable of making a complete mockery of women's golf.
Anyway, it seems like women going against men is the big thing these days, especially in "sports" like golf and auto racing where the gender gap seems to make less of a difference.
Take Danica Patrick. After she didn't win the Indianapolis 500 (but finished an impressive-for-a-rookie fourth), she was on the cover of Sports Illustrated with the tagline: "The Start of Something Big."
Ha.
Unless the "something big" refers to the amount of coverage rammed down our collective throats, instead of her career, this is absurd. It's impossible for her profile to get any bigger than it was that week, even if she wins the race next year.
Or do you know someone who actually watched the Indy 500?
Same goes for Annika Sorenstam, occasionally said to be the world's greatest golfer. Um, no. No one would ever call Lisa Leslie the world's best basketball player, so why do we have to delude ourselves in other arenas?
Or go back to Wie, an amazing talent who-again, at 15-was tied for the lead in the women's U.S. Open going into the last day just a few weeks ago. And she came pretty close to becoming the first woman in however long to make the cut at a men's tournament. But while I know and care little for the "sport", making the cut sounds like a far cry from winning the tournament, doesn't it?
Even though I think auto racing is lame, and even men's golf is stealth to my radar, I think it would be amazing for a woman to come in and actually win the events. The key word being "win".
I know there's nothing better to discuss in sports right now (trust me, I'm talking about talking about it), but can we at least hold off on the coronations until a coup occurs?
Finally, a programming note: I think I will make the local Denver sports round-up a weekly event, probably to run every Friday. Unless nothing happens, in which case we'll discuss American foreign policy in the comments section. Thanks for your time.
Friday, July 8, 2005
Here you go, you ungrateful little...
Yesterday I turned on not one but two Rockies games during the seventh inning, one of which must have been a replay. Sweet. Since the Captain pointed out that he has a hard time following Denver sports from out of town, I'll just go over recent happenings and then worry about baseball next week. And yes, I promise not to mention the Yankees and Rogers in detailed fashion.
Rockies: The Rockies did win yesterday's actual game 8-5, thanks in large part to two home runs from Todd Helton, who's actually not having much of a season. By his standards, it's horrific: .281, nine homers, and 38 runs-batted-ins. A recent Denver Post story suggested his struggles might be related to lingering resentment over comments made by broadcaster Wayne Hagin, who maybe sort of suggested that Helton was on steroids. If that's the actual cause, Helton might be the most easily distracted athlete of all-time. That's just weak, and I doubt that's it.
Tough to determine what the actual cause is, though, as he's maintained his plate discipline (which has led to a still-healthy .404 OBP) and I refuse to believe he was ever actually on steroids. Even if I had watched all the games I wouldn't be able to pick up something like "He's not turning on the slider like he used to", which I suspect scouts make up half the time anyway. So who knows.
He's had six straight gold-plated seasons and I don't have the heart to rip the guy. However, his slump has cleared a spot on the All-Star team for reliever Brian Fuentes, who has posted a 2.48 ERA in a scant 40 innings. Not that forty innings is particularly small for a reliever, I just think it's funny that our best performer this year is a guy who has been on the field for not even five full games and, therefore, has had little chance to embarass himself. It's certainly fitting for this year's team.
Unfortunately, Fuentes has become the poster guy for the whole, "Can you believe that stupid rule that means every team gets an All-Star? It's an absolute crime that he's on the team ahead of Morgan Ensberg." Why these people care so much about the integrity of an exhibition game is beyond me. Baseball doesn't seem to tolerate casual fans; just one of the many reasons it's losing ground.
Broncos: Well, today's Denver Post sports section had a thrilling account of the return of Quentin "Q" Griffin, who still thinks he's got a shot to start at tailback. Which is endearing, in a way.
Also, Danny Kanell took a pay cut from $1 million to $350,000 so he could stay with the Broncos. That's sweet, though it's hard to imagine any other team would gainfully employ him, especially at No.2, so it's not as selfless as when Elway was the league's lowest-paid starting Q (in contrast to, I don't know, everyone's favorite pretty boy, Peyton Manning!).
Safety Sam Brandon, who wears No. 42 to honor his spot as the forty-second straight safety drafted by Denver to be compared favorably Steve Atwater and fall miserably short, was arrested Monday, so that's news, too.
Really, the closest thing to a battle so far is between new punter Todd Sauerbrun and draftee Paul Edinger, who will probably end up as a kickoff specialist anyway. However, when someone in camp starts turning heads in the proud tradition of guys like Darius Watts, Dorsett Davis and Brian Griese, I'll let you know.
Nuggets: Nuggets rookies looked solid in yesterday's opening summer-league game. Julius Hodge had 13 points. Ricky Sanchez scored twice from the outside, including a three-pointer. Always good to see your near seven-footers stepping out beyond the arc after being physically manhandled by the likes of Jelani McCoy, who has been in the league way too long to have to play in the summer. Yeah, he'll develop, New Jersey, smart move.
Put aside those fears about Linas Kleiza not being athletic enough to run in the Association: he finished with just seven fouls. Yes, seven, I guess you can't foul out in the summer.
"Front" Axel Hervelle did not play.
Rockies: The Rockies did win yesterday's actual game 8-5, thanks in large part to two home runs from Todd Helton, who's actually not having much of a season. By his standards, it's horrific: .281, nine homers, and 38 runs-batted-ins. A recent Denver Post story suggested his struggles might be related to lingering resentment over comments made by broadcaster Wayne Hagin, who maybe sort of suggested that Helton was on steroids. If that's the actual cause, Helton might be the most easily distracted athlete of all-time. That's just weak, and I doubt that's it.
Tough to determine what the actual cause is, though, as he's maintained his plate discipline (which has led to a still-healthy .404 OBP) and I refuse to believe he was ever actually on steroids. Even if I had watched all the games I wouldn't be able to pick up something like "He's not turning on the slider like he used to", which I suspect scouts make up half the time anyway. So who knows.
He's had six straight gold-plated seasons and I don't have the heart to rip the guy. However, his slump has cleared a spot on the All-Star team for reliever Brian Fuentes, who has posted a 2.48 ERA in a scant 40 innings. Not that forty innings is particularly small for a reliever, I just think it's funny that our best performer this year is a guy who has been on the field for not even five full games and, therefore, has had little chance to embarass himself. It's certainly fitting for this year's team.
Unfortunately, Fuentes has become the poster guy for the whole, "Can you believe that stupid rule that means every team gets an All-Star? It's an absolute crime that he's on the team ahead of Morgan Ensberg." Why these people care so much about the integrity of an exhibition game is beyond me. Baseball doesn't seem to tolerate casual fans; just one of the many reasons it's losing ground.
Broncos: Well, today's Denver Post sports section had a thrilling account of the return of Quentin "Q" Griffin, who still thinks he's got a shot to start at tailback. Which is endearing, in a way.
Also, Danny Kanell took a pay cut from $1 million to $350,000 so he could stay with the Broncos. That's sweet, though it's hard to imagine any other team would gainfully employ him, especially at No.2, so it's not as selfless as when Elway was the league's lowest-paid starting Q (in contrast to, I don't know, everyone's favorite pretty boy, Peyton Manning!).
Safety Sam Brandon, who wears No. 42 to honor his spot as the forty-second straight safety drafted by Denver to be compared favorably Steve Atwater and fall miserably short, was arrested Monday, so that's news, too.
Really, the closest thing to a battle so far is between new punter Todd Sauerbrun and draftee Paul Edinger, who will probably end up as a kickoff specialist anyway. However, when someone in camp starts turning heads in the proud tradition of guys like Darius Watts, Dorsett Davis and Brian Griese, I'll let you know.
Nuggets: Nuggets rookies looked solid in yesterday's opening summer-league game. Julius Hodge had 13 points. Ricky Sanchez scored twice from the outside, including a three-pointer. Always good to see your near seven-footers stepping out beyond the arc after being physically manhandled by the likes of Jelani McCoy, who has been in the league way too long to have to play in the summer. Yeah, he'll develop, New Jersey, smart move.
Put aside those fears about Linas Kleiza not being athletic enough to run in the Association: he finished with just seven fouls. Yes, seven, I guess you can't foul out in the summer.
"Front" Axel Hervelle did not play.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)