Thursday, August 6, 2009
Thinking about the Game: Part 2 (to be continued)
I'm really sorry that I have to write this, only two weeks into the re-boot of the blog. I could give you a list of excuses, some better than others, but suffice to say I'll be missing my target of a Tuesday-Thursay posting schedule this week. I will be putting up another post either tomorrow night or early Sunday afternoon. Again, sorry.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Thinking about the Game: Part 1
Now that I've comfortably settled back into writing on a semi-regular basis, I'll be doing my best to maintain a posting schedule of at least twice a week. Posts will usually appear on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. I hope you guys will keep making some time in your busy lives to read my junk.
Like my last post, the idea for this article has been kicking around in my head for a little while now. It's a pretty broad concept, and one post will not be enough to contain all my thoughts on the matter. I expect there to be a second part on Thursday, and then possibly a third part next week.
Game Theory:
Pick a sport that you like. If you are like me, you've probably at least put some passing thought into the strategic aspect of playing the sport of your choice. Growing up, I played a lot of hockey and soccer. Between games, I would sit and think about how they were played. Sometimes my thoughts bordered on the fantastical, but mostly I pondered realistic scenarios. I could draw up creative breakout plays or confounding defensive formations. However, despite my best planning, I always seemed to run up against the same roadblock in implementing my schemes: the players on my teams were never good enough to execute the precisely mapped out instructions. What I discovered was that I was always thinking of strategic execution not in terms of my own skill level, or that of my teammates, but in terms of the skill level of professional athletes. The skill involved in a precision pass, or perfectly timed up-field move, was not always available. At the level at which I wanted to apply my great ideas, they were infeasible.
When I think about how a sport is played, and any viable strategy involved in playing said sport well, I always think in terms of the highest possible level of play. I would never devise a strategy that assumed anything less than perfect play on the part of my opposition. Of course, having never played or coached at a professional level, this may seem odd. In fact, it is almost certainly detrimental to the success of the various teams with which I have been associated. In amateur athletics, the players make mistakes much more readily than professional athletes. Any appropriately tailored strategic approach should probably take this into account.
The Beautiful Game:
Let's follow this idea to its logical conclusion: I think of the professionals, or highest amateur level, as being more representative of any chosen sport than some pick-up game in your local park. This is probably an elitist thought, though I will debate that in the second part of this piece. For me, sports are not as much about the random and the unpredictable, though those things certainly make each individual match more exciting, as they are about exhibiting the limits to which the human body can be pushed in athletic endeavour.
I've played a lot of sports. Most of my childhood was spent either at a sporting event or en route to one (and my parents have the gas bills and mileage on our mini-van to prove it), yet if you asked me today about any of the sports I've played, I will always instinctively begin with talk about the highest level of the game. That doesn't mean that I don't cherish the time I've spent playing; I wouldn't trade any of it for the world. But I do think that I am in the minority in this. I think that most people probably think of their own experience with sport, rather than the game they've watched on t.v when talking about the game itself.
I'll try to tackle why this is, or why I think this is the way it is, in the second installment.
Like my last post, the idea for this article has been kicking around in my head for a little while now. It's a pretty broad concept, and one post will not be enough to contain all my thoughts on the matter. I expect there to be a second part on Thursday, and then possibly a third part next week.
Game Theory:
Pick a sport that you like. If you are like me, you've probably at least put some passing thought into the strategic aspect of playing the sport of your choice. Growing up, I played a lot of hockey and soccer. Between games, I would sit and think about how they were played. Sometimes my thoughts bordered on the fantastical, but mostly I pondered realistic scenarios. I could draw up creative breakout plays or confounding defensive formations. However, despite my best planning, I always seemed to run up against the same roadblock in implementing my schemes: the players on my teams were never good enough to execute the precisely mapped out instructions. What I discovered was that I was always thinking of strategic execution not in terms of my own skill level, or that of my teammates, but in terms of the skill level of professional athletes. The skill involved in a precision pass, or perfectly timed up-field move, was not always available. At the level at which I wanted to apply my great ideas, they were infeasible.
When I think about how a sport is played, and any viable strategy involved in playing said sport well, I always think in terms of the highest possible level of play. I would never devise a strategy that assumed anything less than perfect play on the part of my opposition. Of course, having never played or coached at a professional level, this may seem odd. In fact, it is almost certainly detrimental to the success of the various teams with which I have been associated. In amateur athletics, the players make mistakes much more readily than professional athletes. Any appropriately tailored strategic approach should probably take this into account.
The Beautiful Game:
Let's follow this idea to its logical conclusion: I think of the professionals, or highest amateur level, as being more representative of any chosen sport than some pick-up game in your local park. This is probably an elitist thought, though I will debate that in the second part of this piece. For me, sports are not as much about the random and the unpredictable, though those things certainly make each individual match more exciting, as they are about exhibiting the limits to which the human body can be pushed in athletic endeavour.
I've played a lot of sports. Most of my childhood was spent either at a sporting event or en route to one (and my parents have the gas bills and mileage on our mini-van to prove it), yet if you asked me today about any of the sports I've played, I will always instinctively begin with talk about the highest level of the game. That doesn't mean that I don't cherish the time I've spent playing; I wouldn't trade any of it for the world. But I do think that I am in the minority in this. I think that most people probably think of their own experience with sport, rather than the game they've watched on t.v when talking about the game itself.
I'll try to tackle why this is, or why I think this is the way it is, in the second installment.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The Chasm
I've been thinking about the separation between the haves and the have-nots of the sporting world. In leagues with salary caps, the NHL, the NBA and the NFL for instance, the gap between the big fish and the little fish is not as large. The rich are still better off than everyone else, but they don't wield an overwhelming competitive advantage. Does that make these sports more enjoyable to follow? Is it more interesting to watch the same five or six teams compete for a title every season, or would a rotating cast of contenders offer better entertainment? Any answer depends greatly on one's perspective. I'm sure every Yankees fan in the world is pretty happy with the current sports hierarchy, and that every Royals fan thinks it's terrible, but those are just two opinions. Thus, I will try my best to differentiate between the enjoyment of fans of specific teams and the enjoyment of fans of the sport. I will focus on whether it's a good thing for the talent to be concentrated on a small number of teams, or whether it makes for better viewing if it is spread more evenly throughout the league.
The Best Game You've Ever Seen:
The result of allowing teams to spend as much, or as little, as they choose is an uneven distribution of the available talent. I should preface this by saying that not all major free agent signings work out as they should, and that the teams with all the money don't always win. However, the successful small-market team is an exception, not the rule. Inevitably, even the best-assembled, youth-oriented small market teams fall to shambles. Big market teams with more resources at their disposal will attract the best free-agent talent and, usually, will be more talented because of this.
This has the tendency to make the regular season something of a joke. The teams with the massive financial advantage, and therefore usually the massive talent advantage, beat up on everyone else. I think this is a major negative for sports fans in general. Watching two unevenly matched teams is not very thrilling (assuming there is no possibility of elimination for the losing team). Furthermore, the overall level of play tends to be low. The teams that are adversely affected by a free-spending system will often put very poor products on the field. It's not just that they lose a lot of games, it's that these teams tend to be bad at playing the games. Why would anyone ever subject themselves to a Pirates-Diamondbacks game unless they were a die-hard fan of either team?
Now, if the regular season is the weakness of a free-spending system, then the playoffs are most certainly the strength. As the weaker teams are eliminated, the overall level of play is heightened, and it's not just because "It's the playoffs, everyone magically plays harder now! Woo platitudes without any in-depth analysis!". Now all the bad players on the bad teams are out of the equation, and only the good teams remain. A high calibre game of any sport requires two skilled teams, and the more skilled players you get on each team, the more likely it is that the game will be played well. The best game you will ever see, not necessarily the closest, but the one played at the highest level, will almost certainly be between two teams with skilled players. In a free-spending system, this is more likely to occur than in a system in which the talent is more evenly distributed. Sure it's possible for two mediocre teams to suddenly play well beyond their normal means, but it's far less likely.
Love of the Sport Versus Love of the League:
If you love following Major League Baseball, and you're not a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers or Mets, you're probably somewhat disenchanted with the division between the rich and the poor. You are witness to the same storyline about the big market teams succeeding where everyone fails every year. There's a rotating cast of upstarts (see: Tampa Bay Rays), but they come and go every couple of years. Some don't even last that long. By mid-season, your interest and early enthusiasm have certainly waned. It's just not fun to watch every one else act as professional farm teams.
But if you love baseball, not MLB, but baseball, you probably are at least indifferent to the chasm between the rich and the poor, and you might even like it. During the regular season, you will occasionally be treated to high profile games between two good teams, and when the playoffs roll around, the level of play is through the roof. If the talent was diluted, there's no way the games themselves would be played so well. And as a fan of the game, don't you want to see the very best play at the very highest level possible?
I find myself vacillating between the two positions. Some of the excitement of following sports comes from the unpredictability of it, and knowing at the beginning of every season that some teams will be there at the end and some won't certainly takes away from that. Yet, when the playoffs roll around, I never cheer for an upset. I always want the stronger team to win because I want the game to be played at the highest level possible, and the better team is more likely to do that. And in a playoff bracket of four teams, if the two best teams win their match-ups, then the following series should provide even better play.
I guess I'm saying I secretly love the Yankees and Red Sox and their money-grubbing, talent hoarding ways.
Oh god.
The Best Game You've Ever Seen:
The result of allowing teams to spend as much, or as little, as they choose is an uneven distribution of the available talent. I should preface this by saying that not all major free agent signings work out as they should, and that the teams with all the money don't always win. However, the successful small-market team is an exception, not the rule. Inevitably, even the best-assembled, youth-oriented small market teams fall to shambles. Big market teams with more resources at their disposal will attract the best free-agent talent and, usually, will be more talented because of this.
This has the tendency to make the regular season something of a joke. The teams with the massive financial advantage, and therefore usually the massive talent advantage, beat up on everyone else. I think this is a major negative for sports fans in general. Watching two unevenly matched teams is not very thrilling (assuming there is no possibility of elimination for the losing team). Furthermore, the overall level of play tends to be low. The teams that are adversely affected by a free-spending system will often put very poor products on the field. It's not just that they lose a lot of games, it's that these teams tend to be bad at playing the games. Why would anyone ever subject themselves to a Pirates-Diamondbacks game unless they were a die-hard fan of either team?
Now, if the regular season is the weakness of a free-spending system, then the playoffs are most certainly the strength. As the weaker teams are eliminated, the overall level of play is heightened, and it's not just because "It's the playoffs, everyone magically plays harder now! Woo platitudes without any in-depth analysis!". Now all the bad players on the bad teams are out of the equation, and only the good teams remain. A high calibre game of any sport requires two skilled teams, and the more skilled players you get on each team, the more likely it is that the game will be played well. The best game you will ever see, not necessarily the closest, but the one played at the highest level, will almost certainly be between two teams with skilled players. In a free-spending system, this is more likely to occur than in a system in which the talent is more evenly distributed. Sure it's possible for two mediocre teams to suddenly play well beyond their normal means, but it's far less likely.
Love of the Sport Versus Love of the League:
If you love following Major League Baseball, and you're not a fan of the Red Sox, Yankees, Dodgers or Mets, you're probably somewhat disenchanted with the division between the rich and the poor. You are witness to the same storyline about the big market teams succeeding where everyone fails every year. There's a rotating cast of upstarts (see: Tampa Bay Rays), but they come and go every couple of years. Some don't even last that long. By mid-season, your interest and early enthusiasm have certainly waned. It's just not fun to watch every one else act as professional farm teams.
But if you love baseball, not MLB, but baseball, you probably are at least indifferent to the chasm between the rich and the poor, and you might even like it. During the regular season, you will occasionally be treated to high profile games between two good teams, and when the playoffs roll around, the level of play is through the roof. If the talent was diluted, there's no way the games themselves would be played so well. And as a fan of the game, don't you want to see the very best play at the very highest level possible?
I find myself vacillating between the two positions. Some of the excitement of following sports comes from the unpredictability of it, and knowing at the beginning of every season that some teams will be there at the end and some won't certainly takes away from that. Yet, when the playoffs roll around, I never cheer for an upset. I always want the stronger team to win because I want the game to be played at the highest level possible, and the better team is more likely to do that. And in a playoff bracket of four teams, if the two best teams win their match-ups, then the following series should provide even better play.
I guess I'm saying I secretly love the Yankees and Red Sox and their money-grubbing, talent hoarding ways.
Oh god.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
The Roy Halladay Dilemma: Part 2
Apologies for the tardiness of this post. I had fully intended to write this column as a response to whatever trade that the Blue Jays had foolishly rushed into, but J.P Riccardi seems to have held off. Normally I'm not a huge Richard Griffin fan, but here he is essentially making the same case that I made in my post on Friday. It's like he's reading my blog or something!
Where does all of this leave the Blue Jays? Are they going to trade Roy Halladay? Who knows! Anyone who says they know is lying to you. It's really impossible to tell at this point. The better question has become, what kind of state are the Blue Jays in? In my opinion, they're a .500 team with their current roster. Trading Roy Halladay would make them substantially worse in the short run, and probably won't even improve them in the long run. What SHOULD the Jays do?
1. Build around their young core:
The Jays do have some promising young talent. On the pitchings side, I like Ricky Romero, though his K/BB and WHIP are a little high for my liking. I think he slots in as a good number 3 starter. Scott Richmond, if healthy, is even better and I think he has the potential to be a good number 2 starter.
From a hitting perspective, I love Adam Lind. Really,you can't complain about a guy who in his first full season with the big club has an OPS over .900. I also like Aaron Hill. I know as a Blue Jay fan that it's blasphemy to say a bad word about Hill, but the man absoblutely refuses to walk. I know, he's hit 24 homers. I know. But let's be real about Mr. Hill for a second here. Until this season, he had never hit more than 17 home runs in a season. He'll probably end up with about 30 or so this year, but I would bet my life he averages about 20 or so, at the most, for the rest of his career. Thus, his cripplingly low OBP is almost certainly going to be a problem. His careers OPS, over 574 games, is a measly .764. That, my friends, is not that good at all. So yes, I like Hill's defense and his new found power-stroke, but no, he is not nearly the player Roberto Alomar was. Stop making that comparison, it is insane.
Overbay and Scutaro are both good, but not great, offensive players. They are worth keeping around at a reasonable cost. Scott Rolen is having a great season too, but the man is 34 and not getting any younger. If J.P can find the fountain of youth, and hook Rolen up, keep him around.
2. Deal with the dead weight:
Oh boy do the Jays have a lot of that. Vernon Wells and Alex Rios pretty well simultaneously pulled fast ones on Blue Jays management. Everyone that's calling for them to be traded should remember that at the time they were signed to their big contracts, every Blue Jays fan applauded the moves. Wells was supposed to be the Jays' franchise player and Rios would be his side-kick in vaulting the team up the A.L East standings. Most fans were staunchly opposed to trading Rios for Tim Lincecum. Keeping Wells in Toronto was a coup for what some considered to be a small market team. Keeping homegrown talent was supposed to be a major step.
In hindsight, those two have got to go, and in a hurry. I think the problem is that it will be extremely difficult to convince some team, any team, to even take a flyer on either of the two. They have both looked awful. The only way that a Halladay trade might benefit the Jays would involve dumping one of these two.
3. Pray they are relocated to another division:
I kid. Seriously, though, the Blue Jays are going to have a real hard go of it for the foreseeable future. The Yankees and Red Sox will always be competitive, and the Rays look set for the next couple of years at least. Even Baltimore is getting better. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't see how the Blue Jays can contend. They are at least two big bats away from being close.
Halladay the symbol:
In the end, any potential Roy Halladay trade. or lack of trade, alone probably won't make the Blue Jays either big winners or losers in the A.L East. The sad truth is that unless they undergo a fairly radical overhaul, the Jays can't hope to compete in a division with two of baseball's richest teams. The competitive disadvantage is simply too great. Roy Halladay is a symbol of the problems with baseball. All the big boys have all the toys. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers of the world may not win every year, but they'll always have a chance to win. The Blue Jays are not even a small-market team, yet they are considering giving up their best asset because they have no hope of competing. They can't hope to win. And yet, for some reason, I'll keep watching.
I promise the next post won't end on such a low note.
Where does all of this leave the Blue Jays? Are they going to trade Roy Halladay? Who knows! Anyone who says they know is lying to you. It's really impossible to tell at this point. The better question has become, what kind of state are the Blue Jays in? In my opinion, they're a .500 team with their current roster. Trading Roy Halladay would make them substantially worse in the short run, and probably won't even improve them in the long run. What SHOULD the Jays do?
1. Build around their young core:
The Jays do have some promising young talent. On the pitchings side, I like Ricky Romero, though his K/BB and WHIP are a little high for my liking. I think he slots in as a good number 3 starter. Scott Richmond, if healthy, is even better and I think he has the potential to be a good number 2 starter.
From a hitting perspective, I love Adam Lind. Really,you can't complain about a guy who in his first full season with the big club has an OPS over .900. I also like Aaron Hill. I know as a Blue Jay fan that it's blasphemy to say a bad word about Hill, but the man absoblutely refuses to walk. I know, he's hit 24 homers. I know. But let's be real about Mr. Hill for a second here. Until this season, he had never hit more than 17 home runs in a season. He'll probably end up with about 30 or so this year, but I would bet my life he averages about 20 or so, at the most, for the rest of his career. Thus, his cripplingly low OBP is almost certainly going to be a problem. His careers OPS, over 574 games, is a measly .764. That, my friends, is not that good at all. So yes, I like Hill's defense and his new found power-stroke, but no, he is not nearly the player Roberto Alomar was. Stop making that comparison, it is insane.
Overbay and Scutaro are both good, but not great, offensive players. They are worth keeping around at a reasonable cost. Scott Rolen is having a great season too, but the man is 34 and not getting any younger. If J.P can find the fountain of youth, and hook Rolen up, keep him around.
2. Deal with the dead weight:
Oh boy do the Jays have a lot of that. Vernon Wells and Alex Rios pretty well simultaneously pulled fast ones on Blue Jays management. Everyone that's calling for them to be traded should remember that at the time they were signed to their big contracts, every Blue Jays fan applauded the moves. Wells was supposed to be the Jays' franchise player and Rios would be his side-kick in vaulting the team up the A.L East standings. Most fans were staunchly opposed to trading Rios for Tim Lincecum. Keeping Wells in Toronto was a coup for what some considered to be a small market team. Keeping homegrown talent was supposed to be a major step.
In hindsight, those two have got to go, and in a hurry. I think the problem is that it will be extremely difficult to convince some team, any team, to even take a flyer on either of the two. They have both looked awful. The only way that a Halladay trade might benefit the Jays would involve dumping one of these two.
3. Pray they are relocated to another division:
I kid. Seriously, though, the Blue Jays are going to have a real hard go of it for the foreseeable future. The Yankees and Red Sox will always be competitive, and the Rays look set for the next couple of years at least. Even Baltimore is getting better. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't see how the Blue Jays can contend. They are at least two big bats away from being close.
Halladay the symbol:
In the end, any potential Roy Halladay trade. or lack of trade, alone probably won't make the Blue Jays either big winners or losers in the A.L East. The sad truth is that unless they undergo a fairly radical overhaul, the Jays can't hope to compete in a division with two of baseball's richest teams. The competitive disadvantage is simply too great. Roy Halladay is a symbol of the problems with baseball. All the big boys have all the toys. The New York Yankees, Boston Red Sox and Los Angeles Dodgers of the world may not win every year, but they'll always have a chance to win. The Blue Jays are not even a small-market team, yet they are considering giving up their best asset because they have no hope of competing. They can't hope to win. And yet, for some reason, I'll keep watching.
I promise the next post won't end on such a low note.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Roy Halladay Dilemma: Part 1
I will preface this by saying it feels good to be back. I'll be updating fairly regularly for the foreseeable future. If I won't be posting for a prolonged period, I'll be sure to advertise it well ahead of time. But without further delay, I give you part one of a two part series on the intrigue surrounding the Toronto Blue Jays' decision as to whether or not they should trade their ace Roy Halladay. Enjoy.
What to do with Doc?
Much has already been written about the theoretical trading of one Roy Halladay. It is a complicated situation, and to lift from one of my favourite writers, it is also packed with peanuts. The first question that needs to be addressed is perhaps the most basic: Should the Toronto Blue Jays attempt to trade Halladay? The answer is actually not as clear as some pundits would have you believe. Most people that follow baseball would agree that Halladay is probably the best pitcher in all of baseball. Statistical evidence to back this claim up is not necessary, but can be found here if you are curious.
The way that most trades unfold in baseball involve one team trading a star, or superstar, calibre player in return for a collection of young players and/or minor league prospects. In reading the many Halladay rumours, what becomes immediately apparent is that none of the potential suitors are willing to give up an MLB-ready roster player. The Blue Jays are essentially left to pick through a package of prospects and other possibilities. Most of these are players that are projected to be good, but could just as easily never even make it to the major leagues. Right now, the consensus best pitching prospect in baseball is Stephen Strasburg, who was just drafted first overall by the Washington Nationals. Ignoring for a second the complicated logistics of the Nats' attempts to sign Strasburg (50 million dollars seems like a lot for a kid who has yet to pitch a single game in the majors, but that's neither here nor there), what is the absolute best case scenario for Strasburg's development? Isn't it a Halladay-like career? The man's put up Hall of Fame numbers for years now.
So, hypothetically speaking, Strasburg should have the best chance to just duplicate Halladay's career, let alone surpass it. Now, none of the teams in the running for Halladay are even offering the top prospects in their systems, let alone anyone of the calibre of Strasburg. Baseball prospects are notoriously difficult to evaluate with any degree of precision. If we pegged Strasburg as having a 50-50 chance of having a Halladay-like career, and, frankly, I think that's being generous, wouldn't everyone else have a much lower chance?
To sum up, the Blue Jays are proposing the following: to take a sure thing, probably the best of its kind, and trade it for a package of possibilities. Strictly from a team building perspective, this seems like a futile excercise. The odds are simply too stacked against them. Which means none of this makes sense, why would J.P Ricciardi commit career suicide?
Unless of course, Doc Halladay has told the Blue Jays' management that he won't re-sign with the team after next season (when his contract expires). This part confuses me as well. Roy Halladay is one of the most loyal athletes in all of professional sports. In fact, one could say Roy has been loyal to a fault. He signed a big extension when the team was in much worse shape than it is today. Why now would he suddenly have a change of heart about the city? If he was really thinking of bolting after the 2010 season, wouldn't we have heard something, anything, to that effect? If I were in Halladay's position, I would at least consider signing with a contending team, but it's always been his insistence that he wanted to be part of building a playoff calibre team in Toronto. I also would never believe that Halladay would force J.P's hand with a trade demand. Further, if he had requested a trade, J.P would absolutely have leaked that aspect to the media as well.
The Nuts and Bolts of the Situation:
All of this adds up to a lot of confusion on my part. I see no real reason the Blue Jays are in such a panic to trade the most valuable asset in the market. To summarize their position using a metaphor: the Blue Jays are a factory and they have the best machine in the factory business. It is a highly loyal machine that has never indicated it wanted to leave for another, better factory, instead choosing to remain with the inferior factory. Out of fear of losing this machine when its contract expires, a somewhat unfounded fear I would suggest, factory management propose to trade it for several boxes of unassembled parts. Some of these boxes of parts contain highly combustible materials. There is a very good chance that once assembled these boxes of parts will amount to nothing useful. There is just as good a chance that they will combust and never even make it into the factory, leaving a wake of fiery destruction behind them (Okay, that last part might have been a bit of hyperbole). There is also a very, very, very remote chance these newly assembled parts will contribute to the well-being of the factory. There is an almost zero percent chance these newly assembled machines will replace the best, most loyal machine they just traded for these boxes of parts. And everyone is in agreement that this is good business? This is how to keep your factory open, err, run a successful baseball team?
This all makes no sense, and yet the Blue Jays are intent on making it happen. Thus, part two of this piece will examine the return the Blue Jays can expect for Halladay, as well as further consequences of trading the good doctor. You can expect to see the post Monday evening.
What to do with Doc?
Much has already been written about the theoretical trading of one Roy Halladay. It is a complicated situation, and to lift from one of my favourite writers, it is also packed with peanuts. The first question that needs to be addressed is perhaps the most basic: Should the Toronto Blue Jays attempt to trade Halladay? The answer is actually not as clear as some pundits would have you believe. Most people that follow baseball would agree that Halladay is probably the best pitcher in all of baseball. Statistical evidence to back this claim up is not necessary, but can be found here if you are curious.
The way that most trades unfold in baseball involve one team trading a star, or superstar, calibre player in return for a collection of young players and/or minor league prospects. In reading the many Halladay rumours, what becomes immediately apparent is that none of the potential suitors are willing to give up an MLB-ready roster player. The Blue Jays are essentially left to pick through a package of prospects and other possibilities. Most of these are players that are projected to be good, but could just as easily never even make it to the major leagues. Right now, the consensus best pitching prospect in baseball is Stephen Strasburg, who was just drafted first overall by the Washington Nationals. Ignoring for a second the complicated logistics of the Nats' attempts to sign Strasburg (50 million dollars seems like a lot for a kid who has yet to pitch a single game in the majors, but that's neither here nor there), what is the absolute best case scenario for Strasburg's development? Isn't it a Halladay-like career? The man's put up Hall of Fame numbers for years now.
So, hypothetically speaking, Strasburg should have the best chance to just duplicate Halladay's career, let alone surpass it. Now, none of the teams in the running for Halladay are even offering the top prospects in their systems, let alone anyone of the calibre of Strasburg. Baseball prospects are notoriously difficult to evaluate with any degree of precision. If we pegged Strasburg as having a 50-50 chance of having a Halladay-like career, and, frankly, I think that's being generous, wouldn't everyone else have a much lower chance?
To sum up, the Blue Jays are proposing the following: to take a sure thing, probably the best of its kind, and trade it for a package of possibilities. Strictly from a team building perspective, this seems like a futile excercise. The odds are simply too stacked against them. Which means none of this makes sense, why would J.P Ricciardi commit career suicide?
Unless of course, Doc Halladay has told the Blue Jays' management that he won't re-sign with the team after next season (when his contract expires). This part confuses me as well. Roy Halladay is one of the most loyal athletes in all of professional sports. In fact, one could say Roy has been loyal to a fault. He signed a big extension when the team was in much worse shape than it is today. Why now would he suddenly have a change of heart about the city? If he was really thinking of bolting after the 2010 season, wouldn't we have heard something, anything, to that effect? If I were in Halladay's position, I would at least consider signing with a contending team, but it's always been his insistence that he wanted to be part of building a playoff calibre team in Toronto. I also would never believe that Halladay would force J.P's hand with a trade demand. Further, if he had requested a trade, J.P would absolutely have leaked that aspect to the media as well.
The Nuts and Bolts of the Situation:
All of this adds up to a lot of confusion on my part. I see no real reason the Blue Jays are in such a panic to trade the most valuable asset in the market. To summarize their position using a metaphor: the Blue Jays are a factory and they have the best machine in the factory business. It is a highly loyal machine that has never indicated it wanted to leave for another, better factory, instead choosing to remain with the inferior factory. Out of fear of losing this machine when its contract expires, a somewhat unfounded fear I would suggest, factory management propose to trade it for several boxes of unassembled parts. Some of these boxes of parts contain highly combustible materials. There is a very good chance that once assembled these boxes of parts will amount to nothing useful. There is just as good a chance that they will combust and never even make it into the factory, leaving a wake of fiery destruction behind them (Okay, that last part might have been a bit of hyperbole). There is also a very, very, very remote chance these newly assembled parts will contribute to the well-being of the factory. There is an almost zero percent chance these newly assembled machines will replace the best, most loyal machine they just traded for these boxes of parts. And everyone is in agreement that this is good business? This is how to keep your factory open, err, run a successful baseball team?
This all makes no sense, and yet the Blue Jays are intent on making it happen. Thus, part two of this piece will examine the return the Blue Jays can expect for Halladay, as well as further consequences of trading the good doctor. You can expect to see the post Monday evening.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
The LeBron James Show
I know we haven’t even reached the halfway mark of the NBA season. I know there is still so much to decide. I know these things. I am aware of the dangers of making bold predictions less than 40 games into the season. Believe me, I am well aware. But now that I have all that out of the way, I think we can safely say that if things stay as they are, no one is touching the Cavs. There are so many reasons to believe this.
The Cavaliers are now 19-0 at home:
They won’t go 41-0 at home, but they are not just beating teams at home; they are demolishing them. The Q was popping last night and it gave the game a playoff-like atmosphere. I never thought I’d say that Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland would be a scary place to play, but it sure looked like it last night. How does Cleveland lose a 7 game series with home court advantage? If they lock up the number one overall seed, I really think they are going to win it all.
LeBron James has no regard for human life:
This header is pulled from Marv Albert’s call on one of LeBron’s vicious dunks in the Celtics-Cavaliers series last year. Here’s the youtube clip, including Marv’s fantastic call.
LeBron is unstoppable. The Celtics had no answer for him in any aspect of the game and they are supposed to be the best defensive team in basketball. He went for 38 pts, seven rebounds, 6 assists, four steals and three blocks. Those are, dare I say it, Jordan-esque numbers. He even went made all nine of his free throws.
The Celtics are struggling without a real outside shooting threat:
The Celtics second unit is a joke. Their starting five is still probably the best in the league, definitely the best when Rajon Rondo is clicking, but after those five, they have nothing. Last night was a good example of that. Eddie House, their supposed scorer off the bench went 2-7 in 19 minutes of play and didn’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of the Cavs’ defenders. Big Baby Davis put up a whopping 0 points on 0 of 4 shooting and aside from 3 offensive rebounds, he was a non-factor.
The Celtics had this missing piece last year in James Posey. Against weaker teams, it is not a big deal, the Celtics overcome their offensive struggles with defensive dominance. However, as they are presently constituted, I don’t see how they break down the Cavaliers stunning defense. Heck, Orlando might even give them a run for their money if they played a seven game series today.
We can all calm down on crowning Rajon Rondo the best Point Guard in the East:
When the Celtics were rolling on their 19 game win streak, people started to get a little crazy about Rajon. I’ll admit I probably got a little caught up in the hype myself, but I think it’s time we all took a step back. Rondo did get 13 assists, no small feat, but he couldn’t hit the ocean with his jumper. As the game progressed, the Cavaliers started doubling off him to help on KG and sometimes on Pierce. A number of Rondo’s assists were just run of the mill passes that his shooters knocked down too. He wasn’t getting the kind of penetration the Celts need from him. During the Celtics 4 game losing streak, he is shooting 30% from the floor, 55% (!!) from the FT line and he has only 27 assists to 14 turnovers. It’s been ugly folks and without a serviceable back up PG, the Celtics live and die with Rondo.
I had hoped last night’s game would be a classic between two very good basketball teams, but it turned into a bit of a lopsided victory. It’s just one game, but I can’t help but see this as a microcosm of where the Celts and Cavs are at right now. If I had to put my life’s savings on one team, it would be the Cavaliers. A month ago, I would have said the Celtics. If they acquire an outside shooting threat, say a Jason Kapono, then I might have to go back to Boston. For now though, it’s LeBron and the Cavs’ world and we are all just living in it.
The Cavaliers are now 19-0 at home:
They won’t go 41-0 at home, but they are not just beating teams at home; they are demolishing them. The Q was popping last night and it gave the game a playoff-like atmosphere. I never thought I’d say that Quicken Loans Arena in Cleveland would be a scary place to play, but it sure looked like it last night. How does Cleveland lose a 7 game series with home court advantage? If they lock up the number one overall seed, I really think they are going to win it all.
LeBron James has no regard for human life:
This header is pulled from Marv Albert’s call on one of LeBron’s vicious dunks in the Celtics-Cavaliers series last year. Here’s the youtube clip, including Marv’s fantastic call.
LeBron is unstoppable. The Celtics had no answer for him in any aspect of the game and they are supposed to be the best defensive team in basketball. He went for 38 pts, seven rebounds, 6 assists, four steals and three blocks. Those are, dare I say it, Jordan-esque numbers. He even went made all nine of his free throws.
The Celtics are struggling without a real outside shooting threat:
The Celtics second unit is a joke. Their starting five is still probably the best in the league, definitely the best when Rajon Rondo is clicking, but after those five, they have nothing. Last night was a good example of that. Eddie House, their supposed scorer off the bench went 2-7 in 19 minutes of play and didn’t exactly strike fear into the hearts of the Cavs’ defenders. Big Baby Davis put up a whopping 0 points on 0 of 4 shooting and aside from 3 offensive rebounds, he was a non-factor.
The Celtics had this missing piece last year in James Posey. Against weaker teams, it is not a big deal, the Celtics overcome their offensive struggles with defensive dominance. However, as they are presently constituted, I don’t see how they break down the Cavaliers stunning defense. Heck, Orlando might even give them a run for their money if they played a seven game series today.
We can all calm down on crowning Rajon Rondo the best Point Guard in the East:
When the Celtics were rolling on their 19 game win streak, people started to get a little crazy about Rajon. I’ll admit I probably got a little caught up in the hype myself, but I think it’s time we all took a step back. Rondo did get 13 assists, no small feat, but he couldn’t hit the ocean with his jumper. As the game progressed, the Cavaliers started doubling off him to help on KG and sometimes on Pierce. A number of Rondo’s assists were just run of the mill passes that his shooters knocked down too. He wasn’t getting the kind of penetration the Celts need from him. During the Celtics 4 game losing streak, he is shooting 30% from the floor, 55% (!!) from the FT line and he has only 27 assists to 14 turnovers. It’s been ugly folks and without a serviceable back up PG, the Celtics live and die with Rondo.
I had hoped last night’s game would be a classic between two very good basketball teams, but it turned into a bit of a lopsided victory. It’s just one game, but I can’t help but see this as a microcosm of where the Celts and Cavs are at right now. If I had to put my life’s savings on one team, it would be the Cavaliers. A month ago, I would have said the Celtics. If they acquire an outside shooting threat, say a Jason Kapono, then I might have to go back to Boston. For now though, it’s LeBron and the Cavs’ world and we are all just living in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
