A-Rod admitted that he used steroids- shocking eh? Considering the weight and recourse of those who continue to deny these sort of allegations at least he sort of admitted it. But then what does that do for our Most Valuable Player awards over the years? What should be done where someone who won turned out to be a cheater? Based on either strong allegations or flat out confessions, I've gone back to 1992 to see who got robbed.
Year True Winner Cheater
2007- Magglio Ordonez (ARod)
2005- David Ortiz (ARod)
2004- Adrian Beltre (Bonds)- heavy speculation about Beltre though
2003- Albert Pujols (Bonds)
2003- Carlos Delgado (ARod)
2002- Albert Pujols (Bonds)
2002- Alfonso Soriano (Tejada)
2001- Luis Gonzalez (Bonds)- heavy speculation about Gonzalez
2000- Frank Thomas (Giambi)
1999- Pedro Martinez (IRod)
1998- Moises Alou (Sosa)
1998- Nomar Garciaparra (Juan Gonzalez)
1996- Mike Piazza (Caminiti)
1996- Albert Belle (Juan Gonzalez)
1993- Lenny Dykstra (Bonds) heavy speculation about Dykstra
1992- Terry Pendleton (Bonds)
Now you'll have to admit that some of these guys who got robbed seem like they might have been cheating too, but I'm pretty sure they escaped any outing so far. We're talking about 47% of the MVP winners during this time period being cheaters... Remember Ken Caminiti's guestimate of 50% of MLB players? Does that sound so far fetched now? Does Jose Canseco seem like such a loose cannon now? Wake up MLB! You're losing all of your credibility.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Denial, Steroids, Money, Lying, The Law, and The Breakdown of MLB
Wow, what a title! I can't believe I'm about to start rambling about something that's got me all riled up. So, A-Rod is a "roider". Are you surprised? Sad? Angry? I'm just a bit more cynical about everything related to this breaking story and you should be too.
The back story is that in 2003 MLB players were tested "anonymously" for steroid usage. They were promised that the results would be kept secret with each player assigned a number and the only matching databased situated in the LBC- my birthplace. A year later, the samples would be destroyed. Now that it's 2009 we find out that a) the samples weren't destroyed, b) the test results came out, c) the guilty users were named, d) Alex Rodriguez was one of them. I won't go into the concept of secrecy and grand juries and "leaks" and other breakdowns of our justice system- that's a whole separte rant. But don't you love how this simple information (that was obtained illegally) has already killed his reputation before any sort of due process?
Of course steroids are illegal, and between Jose Canseco, Ken Caminitti, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, we've covered 15-20 years of this topic being a lightning rod in MLB. Those who deny it and break records are chastised. Those who say it was a mistake are forgiven (Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi).
The bottom line is that of course the money involved in baseball is just too good to pass up. With a few good years of service, a decent player can secure a multi-million dollar contract- never mind those blockbuster deals, I'm talking about your typical .278, 12 HR hitting shortstop. So when the competition is so fierce and the payoff so big, can you blame these guys for looking for a competitive edge? Especially when owners and people like Bud Selig turn the blind eye because to intervene would create controversy, lose fans and drop revnues? Well guess what Bud, you made a lot of money over the past 15 years, MLB has made a lot of money- and you can attribute that to steroids. You brought us back from the 1994 death of baseball by any means necessary- and that means was simply letting things go nutso gonzo. Sound familiar? Take a look at our economy in the U.S. and you'll see the same thing but on a grander scale. Nobody wants to be the guy who calls the cops to break up a great party. Luckily for him, Bud is old enough where he'll be long gone with no personal accountability- with his millions in the bank. The next generation will have to deal with the new tarnished image of our national pasttime and a solution for its recovery- so who's the Barack Obama of baseball? And like the real Obama, won't that guy just look like a flounder when the house of cards is already on its way to ruin?
Does someone really deserve half a million bucks per home run he hits? Well when the revenues are pouring in, then you can afford to pay those types of salaries. And when second basemen are hitting 35 homers, then people are excited and they will pay more to see the most dramatic event at a baseball game. And when a pitcher is close to a record but is breaking down because he's over 40, then what would he do to keep playing for another year? The money is just too much to turn down.
I remember when Tony Gwynn was nearing the end of his storied career. He played only for the Padres, and he'd turned down more money to stay with his team. But when most teams would have cut him off, he whined a bit and got a final two year contract worth about $8Mil. And he really sucked those last two years. Now I'm by no means saying that Tony should be lumped in the same sentence as steroids, but his is a good example of too much money available for players. But what if it turned out that he was a user too? What about Cal Ripken? Or Ricky Henderson? We'll never know about those guys- thank God, because I love their image the way they are (except for my lasting image of ginormous Tony diving into 3rd for the last triple of his career while I'm right above the third base dugout... and the crowd was actually laughing as he grabbed the bag safely- I swear, we could feel him pounding the dirt- but i digress)
So 104 players were found to have steroids in their system- of which A-Rod was one. So who else are we going to find out about? This is complete speculation, but I'm basing it on baseball performance- not evidence.- Jim Thome? Vladimir Guerrero? Randy Johnson? Pudge? Jeff Bagwell? Greg Maddux? John Smoltz? And before you go defend Maddux and Smoltz for being purists, would you ever have suspected a good Christian like Andy Pettitte to have done such a thing? I'm an adult pushing 40 and I love each of these guys that I just mentioned. Luckily I've never been a fan of Bonds or A-Rod or Canseco. But I was crushed about the McGwire speculation. So what happens when one of my favorites gets caught? And what about the favorite players of every red blooded American (and Domincan, and Japanese, and Venezuelan, etc.) child who loves baseball? Oh it will happen. Then where will we be? And how do you repair it? And how do you justify the records that have been broken or are on pace to be broken?
Baseball is essentially screwed- and it has been- again since 1994. This thing that we call Major League Baseball is now the latest PS3 quality video game. And in order for it to get fixed, it will have to revert back to the old Atari format. And let me tell you, nobody wants that now that they've seen this farce that has become the game. But when I was a kid, I sure loved my Atari and would play all night long- because it was awesome- just like baseball used to be.
Thank you Bud Selig. I hate you more than ever.
The back story is that in 2003 MLB players were tested "anonymously" for steroid usage. They were promised that the results would be kept secret with each player assigned a number and the only matching databased situated in the LBC- my birthplace. A year later, the samples would be destroyed. Now that it's 2009 we find out that a) the samples weren't destroyed, b) the test results came out, c) the guilty users were named, d) Alex Rodriguez was one of them. I won't go into the concept of secrecy and grand juries and "leaks" and other breakdowns of our justice system- that's a whole separte rant. But don't you love how this simple information (that was obtained illegally) has already killed his reputation before any sort of due process?
Of course steroids are illegal, and between Jose Canseco, Ken Caminitti, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, we've covered 15-20 years of this topic being a lightning rod in MLB. Those who deny it and break records are chastised. Those who say it was a mistake are forgiven (Andy Pettitte, Jason Giambi).
The bottom line is that of course the money involved in baseball is just too good to pass up. With a few good years of service, a decent player can secure a multi-million dollar contract- never mind those blockbuster deals, I'm talking about your typical .278, 12 HR hitting shortstop. So when the competition is so fierce and the payoff so big, can you blame these guys for looking for a competitive edge? Especially when owners and people like Bud Selig turn the blind eye because to intervene would create controversy, lose fans and drop revnues? Well guess what Bud, you made a lot of money over the past 15 years, MLB has made a lot of money- and you can attribute that to steroids. You brought us back from the 1994 death of baseball by any means necessary- and that means was simply letting things go nutso gonzo. Sound familiar? Take a look at our economy in the U.S. and you'll see the same thing but on a grander scale. Nobody wants to be the guy who calls the cops to break up a great party. Luckily for him, Bud is old enough where he'll be long gone with no personal accountability- with his millions in the bank. The next generation will have to deal with the new tarnished image of our national pasttime and a solution for its recovery- so who's the Barack Obama of baseball? And like the real Obama, won't that guy just look like a flounder when the house of cards is already on its way to ruin?
Does someone really deserve half a million bucks per home run he hits? Well when the revenues are pouring in, then you can afford to pay those types of salaries. And when second basemen are hitting 35 homers, then people are excited and they will pay more to see the most dramatic event at a baseball game. And when a pitcher is close to a record but is breaking down because he's over 40, then what would he do to keep playing for another year? The money is just too much to turn down.
I remember when Tony Gwynn was nearing the end of his storied career. He played only for the Padres, and he'd turned down more money to stay with his team. But when most teams would have cut him off, he whined a bit and got a final two year contract worth about $8Mil. And he really sucked those last two years. Now I'm by no means saying that Tony should be lumped in the same sentence as steroids, but his is a good example of too much money available for players. But what if it turned out that he was a user too? What about Cal Ripken? Or Ricky Henderson? We'll never know about those guys- thank God, because I love their image the way they are (except for my lasting image of ginormous Tony diving into 3rd for the last triple of his career while I'm right above the third base dugout... and the crowd was actually laughing as he grabbed the bag safely- I swear, we could feel him pounding the dirt- but i digress)
So 104 players were found to have steroids in their system- of which A-Rod was one. So who else are we going to find out about? This is complete speculation, but I'm basing it on baseball performance- not evidence.- Jim Thome? Vladimir Guerrero? Randy Johnson? Pudge? Jeff Bagwell? Greg Maddux? John Smoltz? And before you go defend Maddux and Smoltz for being purists, would you ever have suspected a good Christian like Andy Pettitte to have done such a thing? I'm an adult pushing 40 and I love each of these guys that I just mentioned. Luckily I've never been a fan of Bonds or A-Rod or Canseco. But I was crushed about the McGwire speculation. So what happens when one of my favorites gets caught? And what about the favorite players of every red blooded American (and Domincan, and Japanese, and Venezuelan, etc.) child who loves baseball? Oh it will happen. Then where will we be? And how do you repair it? And how do you justify the records that have been broken or are on pace to be broken?
Baseball is essentially screwed- and it has been- again since 1994. This thing that we call Major League Baseball is now the latest PS3 quality video game. And in order for it to get fixed, it will have to revert back to the old Atari format. And let me tell you, nobody wants that now that they've seen this farce that has become the game. But when I was a kid, I sure loved my Atari and would play all night long- because it was awesome- just like baseball used to be.
Thank you Bud Selig. I hate you more than ever.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inaguration- Leftist Slant
So I'll post a few of my thoughts on the inauguration coverage on www.cnn.com/live
1. interviewing US troops in Afghanistan, the stateside reporter said "when Obama's face showed up on the big screen here there was a lot of cheering. Was there a similar reaction over there with the troops?" Answer: "not really"
2. arousing applause for Jimmy Carter- who accomplished...
3. arousing applause for Bill Clinton- the last president to be impeached. Solid
4. on a serious note, I have a 7 year old daughter. It must be so surreal for Obama's daughters to be essentially royalty. They really do look like great kids.
5. i respect that they muted the crowd noise for george bush's introduction as either it was not-rousing or possibly more like Philadelphia Eagles fans, but then they cranked it up for Biden so far and will undoubtedly do so for Obama- sort of like NASCAR "crank it up"
6. Barack "H" Obama. way to try to hide your heritage.
7. Lots of anti Rick Warren talk on Facebook
- you know, the pastor that Barack Obama personally chose to give the invocation. I love how people love Obama but hate his choice here.
8. John Williams has proven that he is no more original than Puff Daddy
1. interviewing US troops in Afghanistan, the stateside reporter said "when Obama's face showed up on the big screen here there was a lot of cheering. Was there a similar reaction over there with the troops?" Answer: "not really"
2. arousing applause for Jimmy Carter- who accomplished...
3. arousing applause for Bill Clinton- the last president to be impeached. Solid
4. on a serious note, I have a 7 year old daughter. It must be so surreal for Obama's daughters to be essentially royalty. They really do look like great kids.
5. i respect that they muted the crowd noise for george bush's introduction as either it was not-rousing or possibly more like Philadelphia Eagles fans, but then they cranked it up for Biden so far and will undoubtedly do so for Obama- sort of like NASCAR "crank it up"
6. Barack "H" Obama. way to try to hide your heritage.
7. Lots of anti Rick Warren talk on Facebook
- you know, the pastor that Barack Obama personally chose to give the invocation. I love how people love Obama but hate his choice here.8. John Williams has proven that he is no more original than Puff Daddy
Monday, January 12, 2009
Obama and Gun Laws
I like guns. I'm not a freak about them. I just think that they are pretty cool items of technology. I inherited one from my dad who inherited it from his dad. It's a Smith & Wesson .38 police special- made around 1917 or so. I keep it in a gun bag. I keep the ammo elsewhere. Last time I shot it was about 1995. Last time I shot a gun was about that time too. If someone breaks into my house, they're probably not going to get shot... for now.In our house, we have young kids so buying a more practical gun has not been an option for the past 7 years. And I've had no problem with it. But now that Barack Obama will be our next president, there has been a lot of buzz about buying guns and some of it has been coming from my own wife.
This year I went to Christmas parties where the talk was guns. I've been to coffee shops where people are talking guns. And believe it or not, households with anti-gun wives are softening to the idea. I live in Arizona where we're more of a Blue state (I think that's the one for Republicans) so guns are already everywhere, but the point is that a lot of the recent buzz has been caused by the election of Barack Obama and the fear that he will go straight for gun control as an early priority.
As if the war and the economy and gay marriage were not enough to tackle, will gun laws really be threatened? Couple the conversations that I spoke of with the flat out feeding frenzy at any local gun shops, and you'd think that the end of the world was near. Since my wife softened to the idea of a newer gun, I've started to research it a bit and then I decided to go to the local super big box outdoorsman store- Bass Pro Shop. Not sure if you're familiar with this store, but basically anything that you can do outdoors, they have- it's absolutely overwhelming- like Disneyland. But they have a firearms area that has rifles and pistols and I couldn't even reach the counter because there were so many people there. This was right around Thanksgiving, so sure there might be people gift shopping, but I felt embarrassed that I was surrounded by what felt like gun nuts and here I was, some dude who had basic questions and who wanted to feel what certain models felt like in my hand. It wasn't worth the wait so I left.
About 3 weeks later, I took my daughter to a similar but smaller store after a friend suggested it and found a similar scene. But with this store, the display was sparsely populated- And per the clerk, they couldn't keep the guns in stock and people were buying the displays. Because of the low stock there were only about 10 people there so I picked the brain of the clerk a bit. He told me that they are typically busier after an election and especially with Obama being elected the consensus was "get em while you can".
Then this past weekend, my family got away to the snow and we went to another enormous box retailer called Cabela's which is similar to Bass.
While the wife and daughter were looking for snow clothes, I beelined with our son to the firearms section. And this time I got photos. This is the best one I could get because I felt like a spy- like someone was going to pull a gun on me and harass me about taking photos. It was like the deli counter where they called your number. There were no less than 10 clerks and about 30 customers. The reason you don't see so many is that many were hanging back in the ammo aisles at the time I took this shot.So my question is: Is this gun hype justified? And based on that, are gun manufacturers Republicans or Democrats?
Again, Obama's already got a lot on his plate- enough to take him out 8 years if he gets reelected. So I don't see him addressing gun control during his administration. But we're talking about the second amendment here. A basic unalienable right of Americans. Sort of a third rail of social issues. And when you consider that 44% of voting Americans didn't vote for him, it's the sort of issue that will quickly polarize the country. Thomas Jefferson that a little revolution is good now and then and perhaps it is. But when that revolution is the gun lovers fighting for their rights, then you're talking about a potentially serious revolution.
Now our economy sucks right now and we're seeing lots of companies going out of business and cutting jobs. But gun manufacturers have got to be loving all this hype. If you owned an umbrella company and it was a cloudy day, would you tell people that it was only going to be a sprinkle or that it would burn off by noon? You'd probably emphasize how cool your umbrellas are and how it would protect you from the elements. I seriously doubt that you will see Glock explaining how Obama won't restrict gun laws.
I'll probably get a new gun in 2009- I'll research it well, try a bunch of models and I'm the kind of guy who will get the absolutely best deal. Not sure which one but when the hype swings a certain way, then you've got to act on it. But mark my words- under Obama, the hype of gun contol is unjustified.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Protesting Rick Warren at the Inauguration?
Wow, am I a little behind on the latest controversy. And there's just too darn much to read. So rather than get educated, get ready for some hip shooting.
Barack Obama has chosen Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to give the invocation at his inauguration. And apparently, there's a lot of people who aren't too thrilled about this- particularly, gays and other JO liberals whom I adore so much. These folks want to march on the church, they're calling Warren names, blogging to no end, etc. That's fine. It's called free speech.
But Obama chose Warren personally for this honor. Obama made a decision. Barack Obama- the guy that 56% of American voters voted for this year, is the president elect of our country. He represents change. He represents fresh ideas. He represents something other than the good-ol-boys network (as he's clearly proven with his cabinet selection so far...). He's the chosen one isn't he?
So what is up with all these people questioning his judgement already. He's not even in office and he's managed to offend the whopping 5% of Americans (who are gay) and all the other hateful, spiteful liberal loudmouths who think it's an Obamanation to have Rick Warren even present at his inauguration.
I am appalled at this blatant intollerance and second guessing of our president-elect. I can understand conservatives calling Warren a traitor or sellout or whatever for supporting a liberal leader, but Obama's own people are complaining. And he's not even in office yet!
Wake up America! You made a mistake in selecting Obama. You made a mistake in selecting someone who is really trying to unify. You made a mistake in selecing someone who is reaching across the aisle (both in politics and ideology).
What exactly were you expecting? Were you expecting Obama to go nutso liberal and throw all Republicans in Guantanamo? Ban churches? Declare national gay day. Announce that God doesn't exist? Allow pornography on daytime tv? Confirm the conspiracy theory that was 9/11? Appoint Tim Robbins and Babs to his cabinet?
Barack Obama has chosen Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to give the invocation at his inauguration. And apparently, there's a lot of people who aren't too thrilled about this- particularly, gays and other JO liberals whom I adore so much. These folks want to march on the church, they're calling Warren names, blogging to no end, etc. That's fine. It's called free speech.
But Obama chose Warren personally for this honor. Obama made a decision. Barack Obama- the guy that 56% of American voters voted for this year, is the president elect of our country. He represents change. He represents fresh ideas. He represents something other than the good-ol-boys network (as he's clearly proven with his cabinet selection so far...). He's the chosen one isn't he?
So what is up with all these people questioning his judgement already. He's not even in office and he's managed to offend the whopping 5% of Americans (who are gay) and all the other hateful, spiteful liberal loudmouths who think it's an Obamanation to have Rick Warren even present at his inauguration.
I am appalled at this blatant intollerance and second guessing of our president-elect. I can understand conservatives calling Warren a traitor or sellout or whatever for supporting a liberal leader, but Obama's own people are complaining. And he's not even in office yet!
Wake up America! You made a mistake in selecting Obama. You made a mistake in selecting someone who is really trying to unify. You made a mistake in selecing someone who is reaching across the aisle (both in politics and ideology).
What exactly were you expecting? Were you expecting Obama to go nutso liberal and throw all Republicans in Guantanamo? Ban churches? Declare national gay day. Announce that God doesn't exist? Allow pornography on daytime tv? Confirm the conspiracy theory that was 9/11? Appoint Tim Robbins and Babs to his cabinet?
Friday, December 12, 2008
New York Winners?
I should be working. And when I'm done working I can bury a cable wire, hang the rest of the Christmas lights, take a shower, fix the pool, go Christmas shopping, help at my daughter's school, network, or plan dinner. But instead I'll write about the Yankees- to an audience of...
So the big news of the MLB winter meetings is that the New York teams came away as big winners. How spending a ton of money translates to being winners is a little beyond me as has been proven time and time again over the last decade. So the Yankees have committed $23MM a year for Bartolo Colon II. Yes that's right, the second coming of big fatty. For those with short term memories, you'll see that Colon was traded to the Expos at the trade deadline in 2002 when he was 29. With the Expos, he went 10-4. A year later, he parlayed his success into a lucrative deal with the Angels, a 4 year deal worth about $51MM. He had two solid years but his last two years with the halos he was 7-13. He was 33 and 34 during those crap seasons.
Sabathia just came off a kickass season highlighted with an 11-2 post trade performance. Perfect contract year action. So now he's signed for 7 years with the Yankees at $161MM. That's $23MM a year. He's 2 years younger than Colon was. So that will translate to 4-5 years of kickass performance followed by 2 years of crap. So in reality, his true worth will probably translate to $32MM per year. Now I know that we're talking about two separate pitchers here, but here's the big (key word "big") parallel. Both Colon and Sabathia are big fat dudes- both listed at two and half spins on www.baseballreference.com (which is where I retrieved all stats that I've used for analysis). And big fat dudes tend to break down- especially pitchers who must exert so much force on their bodies 100 pitches per game. And if you compare a guy like Roger Clemens in 1986 to Clemens in 2006, and the dude gained weight. It's a simple derivative of age. So if Colon is listed as 250 now, how much did he weigh 5 years ago?
So the Yankees being defined as big winners sounds very similar to when they signed Carl Pavano. Pavano earned $5MM per win for the Yankees.
Moving on to the Mets and in particular Omar Minaya. Another Expos connection here. Minaya's the J-hole who actually traded for the Bartolo Colon rental- and he only had to give up Grady Sizemore (4 time MVP candidate and 3 time all star) and Cliff Lee (2008 Cy Young Winner, previous CY candidate and 1 time all star). Oh yeah and Brandon Phillips- the starting 2b for the Reds for the last 3 years. So Minaya is a genius if you ask any Expos fan. So now he's the GM of the big money Mets and he has been labeled a winner since he signed K-Rod and Putz. Really?
K-Rod has the new record for saves in a season but he didn't win any awards for that. Oh, I assume he won the Prilosec Relief award or whatever they call it. But anyone who knows closers knows that their lifespan is typically very short. Besides guys like Trevor and Mariano and Billy, closers typically flame out pretty quickly. Look at guys like Keith Foulke or Gagne. Those guys just puttered out after rising so quickly. In fact it's always a risk with any pitcher. It's a big risk to sign a closer- hence K-Rod smartly "only" got a 3 year deal at about $12MM per- which he was smart to take. And going back to Minaya's genius, what else was he supposed to do? The bullpen killed the Mets last year, there are very few top tier closers on the market this year, the Mets have money, so they signed K-Rod. Hell, I could have done that if I were in Minaya's position (ok, I don't speak spanish, so perhaps it would have been a more difficult conversation) So now the Mets have 2 closers of which Wagner is still servicable. So is their bullpen bolstered? Absolutely. Add to that the trade for JJ Putz who was the Mariner's closer in 2007 and you now have 3 closers.
But how many winter meetings end up with the Yankees, Mets or other big market team being declared the "winner"? Don't get me wrong, you can officially name some teams like the Padres, Nationals, Royals, Blue Jays, etc. "losers" and I don't dislike these teams, but they simply didn't make any moves that look like they'll improve their teams. But to name some teams "winners" is absolutely ridiculous. How bout we simply say that these teams spent the most money this winter meeting. Winners are determined in October (ok November) so lets save that label for the appropriate time because at the end of the year, either the Yankees or Mets or both will definately be losers.
So the big news of the MLB winter meetings is that the New York teams came away as big winners. How spending a ton of money translates to being winners is a little beyond me as has been proven time and time again over the last decade. So the Yankees have committed $23MM a year for Bartolo Colon II. Yes that's right, the second coming of big fatty. For those with short term memories, you'll see that Colon was traded to the Expos at the trade deadline in 2002 when he was 29. With the Expos, he went 10-4. A year later, he parlayed his success into a lucrative deal with the Angels, a 4 year deal worth about $51MM. He had two solid years but his last two years with the halos he was 7-13. He was 33 and 34 during those crap seasons.
Sabathia just came off a kickass season highlighted with an 11-2 post trade performance. Perfect contract year action. So now he's signed for 7 years with the Yankees at $161MM. That's $23MM a year. He's 2 years younger than Colon was. So that will translate to 4-5 years of kickass performance followed by 2 years of crap. So in reality, his true worth will probably translate to $32MM per year. Now I know that we're talking about two separate pitchers here, but here's the big (key word "big") parallel. Both Colon and Sabathia are big fat dudes- both listed at two and half spins on www.baseballreference.com (which is where I retrieved all stats that I've used for analysis). And big fat dudes tend to break down- especially pitchers who must exert so much force on their bodies 100 pitches per game. And if you compare a guy like Roger Clemens in 1986 to Clemens in 2006, and the dude gained weight. It's a simple derivative of age. So if Colon is listed as 250 now, how much did he weigh 5 years ago?
So the Yankees being defined as big winners sounds very similar to when they signed Carl Pavano. Pavano earned $5MM per win for the Yankees.
Moving on to the Mets and in particular Omar Minaya. Another Expos connection here. Minaya's the J-hole who actually traded for the Bartolo Colon rental- and he only had to give up Grady Sizemore (4 time MVP candidate and 3 time all star) and Cliff Lee (2008 Cy Young Winner, previous CY candidate and 1 time all star). Oh yeah and Brandon Phillips- the starting 2b for the Reds for the last 3 years. So Minaya is a genius if you ask any Expos fan. So now he's the GM of the big money Mets and he has been labeled a winner since he signed K-Rod and Putz. Really?
K-Rod has the new record for saves in a season but he didn't win any awards for that. Oh, I assume he won the Prilosec Relief award or whatever they call it. But anyone who knows closers knows that their lifespan is typically very short. Besides guys like Trevor and Mariano and Billy, closers typically flame out pretty quickly. Look at guys like Keith Foulke or Gagne. Those guys just puttered out after rising so quickly. In fact it's always a risk with any pitcher. It's a big risk to sign a closer- hence K-Rod smartly "only" got a 3 year deal at about $12MM per- which he was smart to take. And going back to Minaya's genius, what else was he supposed to do? The bullpen killed the Mets last year, there are very few top tier closers on the market this year, the Mets have money, so they signed K-Rod. Hell, I could have done that if I were in Minaya's position (ok, I don't speak spanish, so perhaps it would have been a more difficult conversation) So now the Mets have 2 closers of which Wagner is still servicable. So is their bullpen bolstered? Absolutely. Add to that the trade for JJ Putz who was the Mariner's closer in 2007 and you now have 3 closers.
But how many winter meetings end up with the Yankees, Mets or other big market team being declared the "winner"? Don't get me wrong, you can officially name some teams like the Padres, Nationals, Royals, Blue Jays, etc. "losers" and I don't dislike these teams, but they simply didn't make any moves that look like they'll improve their teams. But to name some teams "winners" is absolutely ridiculous. How bout we simply say that these teams spent the most money this winter meeting. Winners are determined in October (ok November) so lets save that label for the appropriate time because at the end of the year, either the Yankees or Mets or both will definately be losers.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Gift of Obama
So since the election has ended, my passions have dwindled a bit. But through the process I wanted to really learn about the candidates. So I signed up for both Obama and McCain's campaign email newsletters from about July forward.
It was pretty cool to keep up on things and hear what each candidate was focussing on, and once the election was over I received a nice thank you note from John McCain's campaign (via email). I received an email of a different tone from the Obama campaign as well. More of a "rah rah", thanks and we'll do a good job sort of email. Very cool- even though I didn't vote for Obama.
But I never unsubscribed from either list... and since then, I've not received anything from McCain- which makes perfect sense. But I've received a handful of emails from the Obama campaign. About four were actually pretty cool- non-editorialized announcement of his staff, innauguration stuff. No big deal. But I've received no less than 3 emails asking me to donate more money for which I will receive in return- either a t-shirt, mug, or calendar. Seriously? And for the purpose of replenishing the DNC war chest? They want individuals who are most affected by our economy to shell out more money to buy some licensed merchandise?
A Holiday mug (which looks sort of like a coffee mug) for $15
Maybe I'm not part of that culture that needs to commemorate things like this. I have a few T-shirts from places I've worked, a set of fraternity letters, an Expos baseball jersey, a Star Tours coffee mug. And yeah i guess I paid for some of those things. But now as a business owner I have coffee mugs, notepads and pens with my company logo. But I don't go selling those things to my clients. That would sort of set a crappy image with them. Would I want to hit them up for "donations" to help my business out? Isn't the real end result of the Obama presidency supposed to be a better America with more prosperity for the little guy? So how does making them (ok, us) pay a large amount of money for these trinkets help accomplish that end result? Plus, isn't there a whole industry in these sort of "licensed" merchandise already? Is he trying to put them out of business as well?
Perhaps I'll wait til January 1st rolls around and the calendars will be half off at the mall kiosk.
----------------
Now playing: New Order - Touched by the Hand of God (Biff & Memphis remix)
via FoxyTunes
It was pretty cool to keep up on things and hear what each candidate was focussing on, and once the election was over I received a nice thank you note from John McCain's campaign (via email). I received an email of a different tone from the Obama campaign as well. More of a "rah rah", thanks and we'll do a good job sort of email. Very cool- even though I didn't vote for Obama.
But I never unsubscribed from either list... and since then, I've not received anything from McCain- which makes perfect sense. But I've received a handful of emails from the Obama campaign. About four were actually pretty cool- non-editorialized announcement of his staff, innauguration stuff. No big deal. But I've received no less than 3 emails asking me to donate more money for which I will receive in return- either a t-shirt, mug, or calendar. Seriously? And for the purpose of replenishing the DNC war chest? They want individuals who are most affected by our economy to shell out more money to buy some licensed merchandise?
I guess if you want a Billy the Kid Knife
or the Baby Princess Diana Doll
then you can always go to the Franklin Mint. But Obama is now trying to angle into this market?
or the Baby Princess Diana Doll
then you can always go to the Franklin Mint. But Obama is now trying to angle into this market?
A Holiday mug (which looks sort of like a coffee mug) for $15
Or a calendar for $35
Or a T Shirt for $30
Or a T Shirt for $30
Maybe I'm not part of that culture that needs to commemorate things like this. I have a few T-shirts from places I've worked, a set of fraternity letters, an Expos baseball jersey, a Star Tours coffee mug. And yeah i guess I paid for some of those things. But now as a business owner I have coffee mugs, notepads and pens with my company logo. But I don't go selling those things to my clients. That would sort of set a crappy image with them. Would I want to hit them up for "donations" to help my business out? Isn't the real end result of the Obama presidency supposed to be a better America with more prosperity for the little guy? So how does making them (ok, us) pay a large amount of money for these trinkets help accomplish that end result? Plus, isn't there a whole industry in these sort of "licensed" merchandise already? Is he trying to put them out of business as well?
Perhaps I'll wait til January 1st rolls around and the calendars will be half off at the mall kiosk.
----------------
Now playing: New Order - Touched by the Hand of God (Biff & Memphis remix)
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
