With less than two weeks before baseball's trade deadline, most of the talk in the sports world is about who will be buyers and who will be sellers in the trade market. To put it another way, who will concede defeat and try to get some younger prospects for their veterans, and who wants to forfeit some prospects for the chance to win this year. This leads me to wonder, though, if it's ever truly worth it to be a seller. Let's examine this a bit.
Quick, name me one team that's won the World Series in the last 10 years after being a seller. If you said the 2002 Florida Marlins, you're correct, but that franchise was terrible for years after it sold off its 1998 championship team. The fact is, while most teams never really come to fruition on the prospects' development, and often those players move on before the team has a chance to win, there are actually a few instances of young teams finding success. The Marlins are the only team that I can say took the approach of selling off its players for prospects and turned that into an actual championship, though.
Sure, you can argue that other small market teams such as the Twins, A's and last year's Diamondbacks and Rockies all have had success, at least making the postseason. But only the Rockies have played in the World Series (and you can make the argument that that was a bit of a fluke), not including the 2001 D-backs that won it all, because that was a BIG payroll team at the time. In fact, that team cost the Diamondbacks so much financially that they went into significant debt and that was basically the reason the team turned to the youth movement it currently enjoys.
Meanwhile, the Twins and A's, who have both made numerous postseason appearances in the last decade, have only won a combined 1 playoff series since the days of Kirby Puckett and The Bash Brothers (Jose Canseco and Mark McGuire in Oakland), and that was in 2006 when they faced off against each other in the first round. The A's swept the Twins then went on to lose to the Tigers in the ALCS.
Anyway, let's get back on topic here. To be a buyer or a seller. The teams mentioned above lead me to believe that being a seller on a regular basis is not likely to net you a title, or even a chance at the title. The flip side is the idea of being a buyer, giving up your prospects for the veterans to give you a chance to win now. The best example of a team like that is the New York Yankees.
Since their last World Series title in 2000, the Yankees have been the ultimate buyer in the MLB. They have routinely spent astronomical amounts of money on free agents in the offseason, and they have made numerous trades during the season to bring in veterans at the expense of their farm system (the latest example being the Bobby Abreu acquisition). This strategy has clearly not worked, in my opinion, despite the fact that they are in the postseason every year over that stretch. The Yanks have not won the title since 2000, and haven't even been in the Series since losing to the Marlins in 2002.
All this seems to lead me to one conclusion, and it may sound wishy-washy but it's the truth: teams need to be more in tune to when it's the right time to be a buyer or a seller, and be willing to take the chance accordingly. Largely, it appears that teams that make the big splash at the trade deadline are rarely the teams that go on to win the title. When was the last time a team made a major mid-season acquisition and won the championship that year? Um, I can't think of one. Teams are better off making the big moves in the offseason, because it's unlikely that one or two players can turn a decent team into a great team, and team chemistry and cohesion are major factors in winning a title. Recently, teams that have made big runs are the ones that bring up one of their big-time prospects to the Majors (see Jacoby Elsbury with the Red Sox in 2007, Miguel Cabrera with the Marlins in 2002).
On the other hand, teams would be well-advised to make the moves in the offseason when they have a chance. Where would the Red Sox be if they hadn't traded for Curt Schilling in 2003, or Josh Beckett in 2005? Would the Cardinals have won a World Series if they hadn't traded for Chris Carpenter? Who knows, but maybe the Twins or Rockies or A's win a title of they had used some of their minor league talent as bargaining chips to bring in proven players as opposed to using their veterans to fetch still more unproven prospects.
In the end, I think it's clear that a mixture of veteran players and talented youngsters are the key to postseason success, and this infatuation with minor league prospects makes Billy Beane look good, but eventually you have to take some chances and make a run. If you always build for the future, it may never come.
What do you think? Do Major League teams use their farm systems the way they should? Is there a right or a wrong way to use them?
Friday, July 18, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Some Baseball Thoughts for an Off-Day
So I've now had a full day to recover from Wednesday morning's All-Star game, and it's gotten me wondering a few things.
First and foremost, I start thinking about where that game ranks among the great sporting events I've seen this year. On the surface and looking at the box score, I'd be inclined to say that it could make a push for the top 5, and should definitely fit in the top 10. But then I think about the first 6 innings, and just how slow the game was and how the best players, the ones everyone really wanted to see, were on the bench as the game reached its dramatic climax. But I suppose that's the way baseball's showcase has always been. Makes me wonder if the game would be better in those late innings, particularly extra innings, if the starting position players could return to the field. Maybe then we wouldn't have Grady Sizemore, an All-Star reserve, getting five at bats in the game.
Is baseball's All-Star Game the best in sports? Given how little these exhibitions seem to mean anymore (did they ever mean that much?), it seems baseball is the one where you're most likely to find all the players trying their hardest. In basketball, it usually turns into a glorified streetball game/slam dunk contest within the first few minutes. In football, the players that don't come up with some "injury" to miss the game spend much of the game playing not to get hurt, and rules changes make the game different from any other game, a big negative in my book. In hockey, well, they're playing hockey. So yeah. But with baseball, it's all about the 1-on-1 matchups, and every pitch has serious pride on the line. No players want to risk the embarrassment of giving up a homer or striking out or making an error, something that's impossible to hide. Poor play in other ASG's is usually hidden because of the number of players involved in the action and the pace of play, but in baseball most players are out on an island and every error is magnified.
Is baseball's All-Star Game the best?
=======
What are the chances the Rockies make major changes this season? I've been saying for years that Clint Hurdle is nothing special as a manager and I think last year's Series run was the worst thing that could have happened for the franchise's future. Even as the team made its playoff push, Hurdle was more spectator than he was the reason it happened. Now, with the pressure of slightly more national media attention and the expectations that come with being the defending NL champions, the Rockies have been slightly better than horrible this year and are deluding themselves into thinking they're still alive in the pennant race because they're in the NL West. I think the seat will only get hotter for the Gum Chewer.
Another question seems to be getting more and more evident for my Rox: What do you do with Matt Holliday? His contract expires following next season, and his agent is the much-loathed Scott Boras, the man responsible for A-Rod's big contracts, among others. Boras has evidently made it clear to Rockies management that there will be no hometown discount for Holliday so if he's going to remain a Rockie, it'll cost them. And given the Monforts' (Rockies owners) history of tight spending, it seems almost assured that Holliday will land elsewhere. So the Rockies have three options as an organization:
First and foremost, I start thinking about where that game ranks among the great sporting events I've seen this year. On the surface and looking at the box score, I'd be inclined to say that it could make a push for the top 5, and should definitely fit in the top 10. But then I think about the first 6 innings, and just how slow the game was and how the best players, the ones everyone really wanted to see, were on the bench as the game reached its dramatic climax. But I suppose that's the way baseball's showcase has always been. Makes me wonder if the game would be better in those late innings, particularly extra innings, if the starting position players could return to the field. Maybe then we wouldn't have Grady Sizemore, an All-Star reserve, getting five at bats in the game.
Is baseball's All-Star Game the best in sports? Given how little these exhibitions seem to mean anymore (did they ever mean that much?), it seems baseball is the one where you're most likely to find all the players trying their hardest. In basketball, it usually turns into a glorified streetball game/slam dunk contest within the first few minutes. In football, the players that don't come up with some "injury" to miss the game spend much of the game playing not to get hurt, and rules changes make the game different from any other game, a big negative in my book. In hockey, well, they're playing hockey. So yeah. But with baseball, it's all about the 1-on-1 matchups, and every pitch has serious pride on the line. No players want to risk the embarrassment of giving up a homer or striking out or making an error, something that's impossible to hide. Poor play in other ASG's is usually hidden because of the number of players involved in the action and the pace of play, but in baseball most players are out on an island and every error is magnified.
Is baseball's All-Star Game the best?
=======
What are the chances the Rockies make major changes this season? I've been saying for years that Clint Hurdle is nothing special as a manager and I think last year's Series run was the worst thing that could have happened for the franchise's future. Even as the team made its playoff push, Hurdle was more spectator than he was the reason it happened. Now, with the pressure of slightly more national media attention and the expectations that come with being the defending NL champions, the Rockies have been slightly better than horrible this year and are deluding themselves into thinking they're still alive in the pennant race because they're in the NL West. I think the seat will only get hotter for the Gum Chewer.
Another question seems to be getting more and more evident for my Rox: What do you do with Matt Holliday? His contract expires following next season, and his agent is the much-loathed Scott Boras, the man responsible for A-Rod's big contracts, among others. Boras has evidently made it clear to Rockies management that there will be no hometown discount for Holliday so if he's going to remain a Rockie, it'll cost them. And given the Monforts' (Rockies owners) history of tight spending, it seems almost assured that Holliday will land elsewhere. So the Rockies have three options as an organization:
- Trade Holliday before this month's trading deadline, a move that would likely get more teams into the running because he'd be available for all of 2009 for that team, not just for a pennant run this year. Considering the quality minor league talent the Indians got for CC Sabathia who is a legitimate "rental player," the Rox could hope for a major haul, ideally including a Major-League ready, or at least AAA, pitcher.
- Trade Holliday during this offseason like the Twins did last offseason with Johan Santana. This would give all the possible suitors a better idea of what their finances look like for 2009 and beyond, and could get the big spenders like Boston and the New York teams involved because they could potentially re-sign the slugger.
- Trade Holliday before the trade deadline in 2009. This move, to me, seems the riskiest as Holliday's value doesn't seem like it can get any higher than it's at right now. Waiting a full year allows for the possibility of a slump or an injury that could significantly change his trade value and cost the Rockies precious prospects. It also will mean that the acquiring team will only have Holliday for roughly 3-4 months of the season before having to worry about re-signing him, and my guess is Boras is going to use Alphonso Soriano's huge deal with the Cubs as a starting point in negotiations. So these teams will be reluctant to give up major prospects for a rental player.
I'd love to add a fourth option of "Re-sign the best player the team's developed since Todd Helton" but that really seems like an impossibility. Especially if the Rockies are out of contention this year and early next year. Holliday deserves a lot of credit for giving the Rockies even the three options I've just listed, as it's unlikely Boras would have agreed to a 2-year deal last offseason were it not insisted upon by Holliday.
Regardless of which option Rockies management chooses, one thing is clear: the Rocks will never be a dominant team in baseball over a long period. They just can't afford it.
So please tell me what you think they'll do. If your favorite team had to trade its best player, where would you be okay with him going?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Tidbits from the All-Star Game (Live Blog)
- How cool was it to see all of those Hall of Famers on the field? I'm not much of a baseball historian, given I've only closely followed the game for a few years, and never given much thought to its past beyond the biggest of the big names. Nevertheless, seeing all of those living legends, and seeing the reverence in the All-Stars' eyes as they shook the hands of these great players, is really quite amazing. It makes me wish I could have seen more of them in their primes, and makes you wonder what a fan felt like seeing those players in action years ago. Back when there wasn't 24 hour news, and nightly SportsCenter, and tons and tons of media coverage of all aspects of sports, what was it like to see a man play that you may only have read about? Makes me wonder.
- Is it tougher to be a starting pitcher or a starting position player in the first inning of the All-Star Game? From tonight's game you'd surmise that the former is much tougher, as neither team is able to get the bats going early on. The old saying goes that you want to get to great pitchers early on in a game, before they settle in and get a feel for the pitches that night, but it looks to me like the adrenaline may have been a little too much for some of the starting hitters to handle.
- Was Buck and McCarver's conversation with Yogi Berra the dullest thing you've ever witnessed? I know earlier I gushed about seeing the HOFer's, and that was great, but do we really want to listen to a 70+ year old man wax nostalgic during a 0-0 game that, frankly, is rather dull to begin with?
- Does anyone look more smug and sure of himself at the plate and in the field than Derek Jeter? I tell ya, I never cared much for the guy, but I don't think any player in the game is more professional and more suited to the New York stage than Jeter. The man is beloved in the toughest media market in the U.S. and for good reason. Boy it pains me to say that.
- How devastating is it going to be for Rockies fans (such as myself) when (not if) the Rockies trade Matt Holliday? With the home run giving the NL the fifth inning lead, Holliday continues to demonstrate that he can hit any pitcher, even one throwing 97 mile per hour gas, and in any atmosphere. You can't argue that Holliday was the Rocks best hitter in the 2007 postseason, and his regular season numbers speak for themselves.
- Is FOX's radar gun juicing again? Did you see how many 95+ mile per hour pitches have been registered so far? This is ridiculous. I know these are the best of the best pitching out there, but come on. Not even the absolute best can light up the radar gun like these guys have. Something seems to be going on here.
- Could this be the year the NL pulls it off? (posted prior to the 7th inning) It seems to me that the NL may actually have the advantage in this game. While the AL has the better overall players and probably has the better bullpen depth, I think the NL has the better hitters for a game like this, guys that can hit for average and hit well situationally. The AL has more stud power hitters that tend to swing for the fences which can be tough against quality pitchers.
- What is Cory Hart doing in an All-Star game? I mean, seriously. I know, I know, he won the fan vote to get in at the last second, whatever. But you can't tell me that he's a better player than Carlos Lee (not in) or Ryan Howard (not in) or Jimmy Rollins (not in) or... Name your player. Hell, I think I'd rather have Hart's teammate Prince Fielder, all 350 pounds of him, instead of Hart. But I digress...
- Has online fan voting improved the All-Star selection process? This topic was brought up earlier in the day (I forget where) and I thought it was an intriguing question. On the plus side, fans are far more informed now than they used to be about how a player is doing this year as opposed to just riding name recognition, so hotter players are rewarded for playing well. On the other hand, though, you get situations where a player like a Ken Griffey, Jr. does not get voted in even though it would be a meaningful demonstration to an all-time great player. Meanwhile, guys like Kosuke Fukudome and Cory Hart, players with good stat lines but that really don't seem to deserve All-Star recognition, get to play in the Midsummer Classic.
- Have you ever heard a more awkward applause than when J.D. Drew hit the game-tying home run? The Red Sox players have been heavily booed throughout the game, but the fans are still clearly favoring the AL (duh) and they don't know how to react when a Sox player helps the AL. Instead of cheering or booing, it was almost like a golf or tennis applause, subtle and withdrawn.
- Did I say the New York crowd was subtle and withdrawn? Oops. So much for that idea as the Yanks fans quickly jump on Papelbon for giving up a lead-off single to the 31-going-on-34-year-old Miguel Tejada. Then when Tejada comes around to score on a sac fly following a horrible throw by Rays catcher Dioner Navarro on a steal attempt, the Yanks fans jump on Papelbawn full throat for giving up the lead. I know the Sox and Yanks hate each other, but this is some serious venom for an exhibition game, even if it does "count."
- Who the hell is Brian Wilson? No, really. Who is this guy? Giants closer? Really? Ooookay.
- Does the "This time it counts!" campaign have any impact on the game or your desire to view it? I never paid much attention to All-Star games before, in any sport, but I usually watched them (or at least have them on in the background), so I can't say that putting home field in the World Series on the line increases my interest. Frankly, I think home field should be determined by the league with the better interleague record, but I suppose that's beside the point. What do you think?
- What am I supposed to do if I have ED? I'm clueless. I haven't seen a single prescription erectile dysfunction commercial this entire time, and I'm loving it. Granted we still have had plenty of "enlarged prostate" options, but at least there are no 50-somethings sitting in bath tubs overlooking the Grand Canyon in those commercials.
- How sweet was that shot by Evan Longoria? As a fan of two NL teams, and a fan of parity in general, I'm really not happy to see the AL tie it, but still. Nice hit for the rookie, and a bit of redemption after finishing dead last in the Home Run Derby last night. Good for him.
- Have players gotten better/faster/more aggressive on the basepaths, or are catchers getting worse? With an All-Star Game record 6 stolen bases thus far (with 1 out in the top of the ninth), it looks like something is definitely up. Is it that the runners are getting great jumps and burning down the basepath, or are the catchers just not making the throws? Or maybe it's the pitchers' fault for not holding the runners on better, as I've seen very few throws over to first tonight. Hard to say, but it appears to be a trend in the regular season, as well, as stolen bases have been increasing the last few years. Maybe the lack of steroids are leading managers to try and play more small-ball instead of just sitting back and waiting for the two- or three-run homer.
- Is there any chance that FOX's "Fringe" survives more than one season? I'm leaning towards no. No good show ever gets advertised this much before it premieres.
- What in the world is the problem with Ryan Dempster's wrist? Did you see this? He flails his glove back and forth three times before each pitch. I've seen odd windups, but this one is really out there.
- Is there any other sport where a chubby, five-foot something Hispanic man could be an All-Star? Dioner Navarro doesn't think so either.
- Was there any doubt this game would go into extra innings? I guess the All-Star backups are getting a bit more work than they bargained for. Maybe we should ask Bud Selig if they can let the starters reenter the game.
- How will this turn out (posted with 1 out in the top of the 10th)? As I mentioned earlier (seems like so long ago now), the NL seems to have the advantage in starting pitching and hitters that hit for average, but in a sudden death-type situation as extra innings are, this seems to play into the AL's strengths: power hitting and bullpen arms. As much as I hate to say it, I think the AL will pull this one out.
- Is Dan Uggla the MVP for the AL in this one? Looks like it's about to be the case as he blows a 1 out, runners on the corners situation in the top of the 10th and follows with a pair of errors to start the bottom of the inning. I do not envy the poor guy and he'd better hope Cook can pull off a miracle.
- Was that Aaron Cook's best inning ever? It just might have been, as he gets FIVE ground balls, and despite Uggla's errors blanks the AL in a bases loaded, no out situation. Absolutely outstanding.
- How good was that throw by Nate McClouth? And an equally amazing play by Russell Martin at the plate to make the "tag" to prevent the game-winning run. Some close calls by the umps, but they were bang-bang plays and I think the call at the plate was right, even if the call at second earlier wasn't. To the 12th inning we go.
- Why FOX, why? Why can't we make it through an entire sporting event without an ED drug commercial? Official time: 11:25 central standard time.
- Remember when Matt Holliday hit that home run last week? That was cool. Oh, that was today? Wow.
- Has anybody ever wanted a grand slam more than Dan Uggla does here in the 12th? Not a chance. What a painful at-bat that ended up being. I'll say it again: poor guy.
- Am I the only one hoping for a walk-off here in the bottom of the 12th? Some of us have to go to work tomorrow...
- If the NL wins this thing, is Aaron Cook your MVP? Hard to argue with as he's handled extreme pressure and a lineup of (second tier) All-Stars beautifully over 3 innings.
- Why couldn't that ball go another five feet? Nate McClouth leads off the 14th inning with a shot to deep right field, but it comes up just short as J.D. Drew makes the catch at the track. Earlier in the 13th inning Carlos Guillen had a similar shot to lead off the inning against Aaron Cook, but that turned into a double and produced no runs when all was said and done.
- Is it time for Bud Selig to step in again? I'm not sure anyone would blame him for calling this game as we prepare for the 15th inning, tying an All-Star Game record for innings played. We passed the record for time played at about 11:30 PM and we're at 12:20 as I write this.
- Who didn't want Kinsler's shot to left to get by Ludwick? After going back then staggering to recover, Ludwick makes a nice driving grab in the bottom of the 15th to keep the game tied and Morneau at first. Shortly thereafter, Dioner Navarro belts a single and Drew has another chance to be a hero, 2 on, 1 out. I think the Yankees fans will cheer a Drew hit here, Red Sox player or not. Drew walks, Michael Young up with a chance to win it again, and Clint Hurdle is still chewing the same piece of gum.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
The Enemy Within
My rant yesterday about Brett Favre got me to thinking about what I would do if the unlikely were to occur and he wound up a Minnesota Viking. Could I cheer for a guy I despise if he could help my team win? Could I enjoy his success? It's a tough question to answer.
There have been a couple instances in the past when I player I dislike has joined a team I like. When Jeff Kent joined the Astros, I didn't think much of him (particularly because I dislike the Giants), but I got fairly used to him in the couple of years he played in Houston. My dislike for him, though, was nowhere near my feelings about Favre.
Then when Pettite and Clemens joined the 'Stros from the hated Yankees, again I was reluctant to cheer for them, but eventually did, even if half-heartedly. I was able to put aside my feelings for the individuals (to an extent) in order to enjoy my favorite team's success.
When the Broncos, another of my favorite teams, drafted Maurice Clarett in 2005, I was guardedly optimistic that he might turn out to be a good player. He clearly did not, and proved before he even hit the practice field that he would be a problem. Still, I don't hold a grudge against the guy because his life is such a mess. I can only feel sorry for him.
The difference between Favre and any of the other players I mentioned is that my level of spite is much higher for Favre. Would that change if he suited up in the purple and gold? At this point, I would guess that it might, if he helped them win, but if he stunk the place up, I'd be even more spiteful of him for bringing his F-game to a favorite team of mine.
So, I pose this question to you, the reader. How would you feel if someone you despised joined a team that you liked? Could you root for said player to help your team, or would you continue to hate the player, regardless of the effect on your team?
My guess is that most people would put up with a player they hate if the player got results for the team. Just look at Barry Bonds' popularity in San Francisco. I think most sports fans will gripe about a player, unless that player is on a team they like, in which case their tolerance for the player goes way up. For the average fan, winning trumps all other concerns.
There have been a couple instances in the past when I player I dislike has joined a team I like. When Jeff Kent joined the Astros, I didn't think much of him (particularly because I dislike the Giants), but I got fairly used to him in the couple of years he played in Houston. My dislike for him, though, was nowhere near my feelings about Favre.
Then when Pettite and Clemens joined the 'Stros from the hated Yankees, again I was reluctant to cheer for them, but eventually did, even if half-heartedly. I was able to put aside my feelings for the individuals (to an extent) in order to enjoy my favorite team's success.
When the Broncos, another of my favorite teams, drafted Maurice Clarett in 2005, I was guardedly optimistic that he might turn out to be a good player. He clearly did not, and proved before he even hit the practice field that he would be a problem. Still, I don't hold a grudge against the guy because his life is such a mess. I can only feel sorry for him.
The difference between Favre and any of the other players I mentioned is that my level of spite is much higher for Favre. Would that change if he suited up in the purple and gold? At this point, I would guess that it might, if he helped them win, but if he stunk the place up, I'd be even more spiteful of him for bringing his F-game to a favorite team of mine.
So, I pose this question to you, the reader. How would you feel if someone you despised joined a team that you liked? Could you root for said player to help your team, or would you continue to hate the player, regardless of the effect on your team?
My guess is that most people would put up with a player they hate if the player got results for the team. Just look at Barry Bonds' popularity in San Francisco. I think most sports fans will gripe about a player, unless that player is on a team they like, in which case their tolerance for the player goes way up. For the average fan, winning trumps all other concerns.
Top 5 Worst Draft Picks - 2004 NFL Draft
Part 5 of my series running down the worst first round selections in each NFL draft since the year 2000. The 2004 draft was notable for two things: the number of draft records it set and the infamous Eli Manning trade. The former included a record seven wide receivers selected in the first round, a record 28 trades in the first round, and a record six players selected from the University of Miami in the first round. Another record was set by Ohio State University which had a record 14 total players selected in the draft. The latter, the Eli Manning trade, is well known because of the fact that he was traded after he was drafted, a significant rarity in the NFL. The Chargers selected the Ole Miss QB despite his comments leading up to the draft that he would not play with San Diego if they chose him. About an hour after the selection, the Chargers traded Manning to the New York Giants for the QB Philip Rivers (the #4 overall pick) and the Giants' first and fifth round picks in 2005.
An amazing 13 of the top 24 players selected have already been to the Pro Bowl, and that doesn't even include Super Bowl XLII MVP Eli Manning. Eight of the top 12 picks have been to Hawaii, while two (Manning and CB Dunta Robinson) are considered to still be potential future Pro Bowlers. Given all that, the worst picks in this draft don't have to be complete busts to stand out among the quality players.
Honorable Mention: J.P. Losman, Quarterback, #22 Overall Pick, Buffalo Bills - After spending the #13 pick on a wideout (Lee Evans) and spending a first round pick in 2003 on a running back (Willis McGahee), the Bills believed Losman was the final piece to a great young offense. Losman would spend his rookie season on the bench watching and learning from veteran Drew Bledsoe, and started his first game in 2005. Losman struggled through the 2005 season, even being benched in favor of backup Kelly Holcomb and the two split time through much of the season. Thanks largely to a porous offensive line and a struggling running game, the Bills offense had little success in 2006 as well, although Losman himself played well. Despite this, the Bills still chose to select Stanford quarterback Trent Edwards in the third round of the 2007 draft and after Losman went down with an ankle injury in October, Edwards stepped in and performed well enough to be named the starting quarterback even when Losman returned. Rumors then surfaced that the decision was not merit-based but rather a means for the Bills to avoid Losman reaching certain milestones that would result in bonuses from his contract. When Edwards went down with an injury, Losman returned to the lineup and again performed well but was clearly upset about being benched and even requested a trade which has not yet been granted. He will be a Bill in 2008, but it is unknown whether or not he will start. Players selected later: RB Steven Jackson #24, CB Chris Gamble #28, QB Matt Schaub #90.
5. Kenechi Udeze, Defensive End, #20 Overall Pick, Minnesota Vikings - Udeze had a standout career at USC but could never seem to get it going with the Vikings. His early career was marred by a major knee injury in his second season and when he returned in 2006, he was ineffective. In 2007 it was discovered that he has a form of Leukemia and he will received a bone marrow transplant that will keep him out at least through the 2008 season. Players selected later: DT Vince Wilfork #21, RB Steven Jackson #24, SS Bob Sanders #44.
4. Reggie Williams, Wide Receiver, #9 Overall Pick, Jacksonville Jaguars - It's no surprise that at least one of the seven receivers selected in the first round would show up on here. Williams, being a top 10 pick, might have warranted a higher ranking on this list were it not for the fact that the Jaguars still believe he can turn into a quality receiver as evidenced by his 11 touchdown receptions in 2007 (on only 38 total catches, mind you). Williams looked like he was figuring things out in early 2005 until a mid-season concussion caused his numbers to drop off. Again in 2006 he was on pace for a breakout season until an ankle injury sidelined quarterback Byron Leftwich and Williams production dropped with David Garrard under center. Williams may still make it in the league, but for now he's most accurately described as a draft miss. Players selected later: LB Jonathan Vilma #12, WR Lee Evans #13, DT Tommie Harris #14.
3. Robert Gallery, Offensive Tackle, #2 Overall Pick, Oakland Raiders - This was a tough choice, because Gallery seems like he really should be higher on this list, but the fact is the two players ahead of him deserve those spots more. Gallery was seen as a can't-miss prospect coming out of Iowa, with good size and strength and remarkably quick feet, but for whatever reason he was never really able to put it all together as a tackle. Gallery does get a bit of redemption in the fact that, since he was moved to guard prior to the 2007 season, he seems to have found his niche in the league and some think he may even be capable of becoming a Pro Bowl caliber guard within the next couple years. Despite this, virtually all NFL teams would agree that not even a Pro Bowl guard is worth the #2 pick, and it's rare a guard would ever be picked in the top half of round 1. Players selected later: WR Larry Fitzgerald #3, QB Philip Rivers #4, S Sean Taylor #5.
2. Ahmad Carroll, Cornerback, #25 Overall Pick, Green Bay Packers - Carroll may have one of the strongest nicknames in all of football: "Highway 28" (28 being his number) for the fact that opposing receivers routinely speed past him into the endzone. His other nickname, also very appropriate, is "Grabby Smurf" for his tendency to commit illegal contact penalties (i.e. pass interference). In Carroll's career, he played 34 games with the Packers, starting 28, and was flagged 33 times (26 for coverage violations) for 256 penalty yards (on only 24 accepted penalties) and allowed 11 touchdown receptions. Oh, and he did have 3 interceptions, so he's got that going for him. Let's not forget the arrest in May 2007 on charges of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, possession of MDMA (ecstasy) and possession of a firearm during commitment of a felony. No surprise, he's been out of football since then. Players selected later: CB Chris Gamble #28, LB Karlos Dansby #33, S Bob Sanders #44.
1. Rashaun Woods, Wide Receiver, #31 Overall Pick, San Francisco 49ers - So how does the #31 overall pick make his way onto this list? How does a career total of 7 receptions for 160 yards and 1 touchdown sound? Not so good for a first round pick. Woods career production all came in his rookie season in 2004. He spent the 2005 season on injured reserve with torn ligaments in his thumb, and was traded in April 2006 to the San Diego Chargers. He would be cut by the Chargers in August of 2006 without playing a down and would subsequently be offered a contract with the Denver Broncos but fail the team's physical and not be signed. He later worked out for the Vikings, but was not signed and his been out of football since the end of 2006. Players selected later: TE Benjamin Watson #32, LB Karlos Dansby #33, S Bob Sanders #44.
An amazing 13 of the top 24 players selected have already been to the Pro Bowl, and that doesn't even include Super Bowl XLII MVP Eli Manning. Eight of the top 12 picks have been to Hawaii, while two (Manning and CB Dunta Robinson) are considered to still be potential future Pro Bowlers. Given all that, the worst picks in this draft don't have to be complete busts to stand out among the quality players.
Honorable Mention: J.P. Losman, Quarterback, #22 Overall Pick, Buffalo Bills - After spending the #13 pick on a wideout (Lee Evans) and spending a first round pick in 2003 on a running back (Willis McGahee), the Bills believed Losman was the final piece to a great young offense. Losman would spend his rookie season on the bench watching and learning from veteran Drew Bledsoe, and started his first game in 2005. Losman struggled through the 2005 season, even being benched in favor of backup Kelly Holcomb and the two split time through much of the season. Thanks largely to a porous offensive line and a struggling running game, the Bills offense had little success in 2006 as well, although Losman himself played well. Despite this, the Bills still chose to select Stanford quarterback Trent Edwards in the third round of the 2007 draft and after Losman went down with an ankle injury in October, Edwards stepped in and performed well enough to be named the starting quarterback even when Losman returned. Rumors then surfaced that the decision was not merit-based but rather a means for the Bills to avoid Losman reaching certain milestones that would result in bonuses from his contract. When Edwards went down with an injury, Losman returned to the lineup and again performed well but was clearly upset about being benched and even requested a trade which has not yet been granted. He will be a Bill in 2008, but it is unknown whether or not he will start. Players selected later: RB Steven Jackson #24, CB Chris Gamble #28, QB Matt Schaub #90.
5. Kenechi Udeze, Defensive End, #20 Overall Pick, Minnesota Vikings - Udeze had a standout career at USC but could never seem to get it going with the Vikings. His early career was marred by a major knee injury in his second season and when he returned in 2006, he was ineffective. In 2007 it was discovered that he has a form of Leukemia and he will received a bone marrow transplant that will keep him out at least through the 2008 season. Players selected later: DT Vince Wilfork #21, RB Steven Jackson #24, SS Bob Sanders #44.
4. Reggie Williams, Wide Receiver, #9 Overall Pick, Jacksonville Jaguars - It's no surprise that at least one of the seven receivers selected in the first round would show up on here. Williams, being a top 10 pick, might have warranted a higher ranking on this list were it not for the fact that the Jaguars still believe he can turn into a quality receiver as evidenced by his 11 touchdown receptions in 2007 (on only 38 total catches, mind you). Williams looked like he was figuring things out in early 2005 until a mid-season concussion caused his numbers to drop off. Again in 2006 he was on pace for a breakout season until an ankle injury sidelined quarterback Byron Leftwich and Williams production dropped with David Garrard under center. Williams may still make it in the league, but for now he's most accurately described as a draft miss. Players selected later: LB Jonathan Vilma #12, WR Lee Evans #13, DT Tommie Harris #14.
3. Robert Gallery, Offensive Tackle, #2 Overall Pick, Oakland Raiders - This was a tough choice, because Gallery seems like he really should be higher on this list, but the fact is the two players ahead of him deserve those spots more. Gallery was seen as a can't-miss prospect coming out of Iowa, with good size and strength and remarkably quick feet, but for whatever reason he was never really able to put it all together as a tackle. Gallery does get a bit of redemption in the fact that, since he was moved to guard prior to the 2007 season, he seems to have found his niche in the league and some think he may even be capable of becoming a Pro Bowl caliber guard within the next couple years. Despite this, virtually all NFL teams would agree that not even a Pro Bowl guard is worth the #2 pick, and it's rare a guard would ever be picked in the top half of round 1. Players selected later: WR Larry Fitzgerald #3, QB Philip Rivers #4, S Sean Taylor #5.
2. Ahmad Carroll, Cornerback, #25 Overall Pick, Green Bay Packers - Carroll may have one of the strongest nicknames in all of football: "Highway 28" (28 being his number) for the fact that opposing receivers routinely speed past him into the endzone. His other nickname, also very appropriate, is "Grabby Smurf" for his tendency to commit illegal contact penalties (i.e. pass interference). In Carroll's career, he played 34 games with the Packers, starting 28, and was flagged 33 times (26 for coverage violations) for 256 penalty yards (on only 24 accepted penalties) and allowed 11 touchdown receptions. Oh, and he did have 3 interceptions, so he's got that going for him. Let's not forget the arrest in May 2007 on charges of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a pistol without a license, possession of MDMA (ecstasy) and possession of a firearm during commitment of a felony. No surprise, he's been out of football since then. Players selected later: CB Chris Gamble #28, LB Karlos Dansby #33, S Bob Sanders #44.
1. Rashaun Woods, Wide Receiver, #31 Overall Pick, San Francisco 49ers - So how does the #31 overall pick make his way onto this list? How does a career total of 7 receptions for 160 yards and 1 touchdown sound? Not so good for a first round pick. Woods career production all came in his rookie season in 2004. He spent the 2005 season on injured reserve with torn ligaments in his thumb, and was traded in April 2006 to the San Diego Chargers. He would be cut by the Chargers in August of 2006 without playing a down and would subsequently be offered a contract with the Denver Broncos but fail the team's physical and not be signed. He later worked out for the Vikings, but was not signed and his been out of football since the end of 2006. Players selected later: TE Benjamin Watson #32, LB Karlos Dansby #33, S Bob Sanders #44.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Top 5 Reasons I Hate Brett Favre
With the sainted Brett Favre in the news lately whining about wanting to come back and play again, it has dredged up all the reasons I dislike the man, and added a couple of new ones. Here are the things about him that really stick in my craw:
5. Everybody loves him - I tend to dislike those teams/persons/things that everyone likes. I always pull for the underdog, for the lesser-known, and am annoyed when someone is made out to be Mr./Ms. Perfect and that not loving him/her is absolutely unthinkable. Favre is one of these people. Broadcasters, analysts, everybody related to football seems to have a non-sexual crush on Favre. Now, I don't blame Brett for that, but it is still a reason I loathe him, especially because...
4. Everybody always talks about him - Okay, we get it. He's a great quarterback, he's tough, he's played through some difficult situations and has achieved some incredible feats. I've heard about them... over, and over, and over, and over. Can we just please talk about something else? I hear there's a guy named Bonds who hasn't been talked about enough.
3. He can't make up his damned mind - For a man who is supposedly a maverick or a gunslinger or some other romanticized Wild West cliche, he sure can't make a decision. If he showed as much restraint and forethought when he played football as he does when thinking about whether he wants to play football, he might not be the career leader in interceptions. But no, when he's not flinging around a football, he's wishy-washy and indecisive. Maybe the Packers need to send a linebacker blitz after him during the offseason to get him to make a decision. What compounds this problem is that his indecisiveness makes reason #4 exponentially more annoying because all anyone can talk about is what he's going to do. When he finally "retired" earlier this year, I was able to survive the weeks of tributes and gushing about him because I thought it meant I wouldn't have to hear about him anymore. But noooooooo, he just had to get "the itch", which means not only will he be around longer, but when he re-retires, we'll have to go through all this garbage again! Which brings us to...
2. He's selfish - I understand that it's tough deciding when to retire, that you only get one life and you have to make the most of it, but come on! If you think you might want to play again, then don't f-ing retire! If you retire but get "the itch", put on some Gold Bond or BOOM, tough-actin' Tinactin, as the Brett-Favre Fan Club President John Madden would recommend, and gut it out. The itch will pass. Don't go changing your mind and screwing with your team, your fans, and especially those who despise you and wish you would disappear. Let the Packers move on, like they had been planning. Let your fans honor your career, then move on and find someone else to admire. And let the rest of us be rid of your annoying presence. Don't give a big middle finger to everyone by coming back and then demanding you get your job back, or else you'll go work elsewhere.
1. He's given me reason to not hate the Packers as much - This may be Brett's greatest crime of all. For all the reasons he's given me, a Vikings fan, to despise the Packers, to pull something like this is just a low blow. Why has he given me reason to think better of the Packers? Because of the way they've handled the situation, by telling him he can't come back and expect his job back, and that they won't just release him to go play elsewhere. They've told him they're doing things on their terms and that, as much as he's done for the franchise, he can't call the shots. I respect that, and it pisses me off. Leave it to Brett to be the one person who could douse the flames of my hatred for the Packers.
5. Everybody loves him - I tend to dislike those teams/persons/things that everyone likes. I always pull for the underdog, for the lesser-known, and am annoyed when someone is made out to be Mr./Ms. Perfect and that not loving him/her is absolutely unthinkable. Favre is one of these people. Broadcasters, analysts, everybody related to football seems to have a non-sexual crush on Favre. Now, I don't blame Brett for that, but it is still a reason I loathe him, especially because...
4. Everybody always talks about him - Okay, we get it. He's a great quarterback, he's tough, he's played through some difficult situations and has achieved some incredible feats. I've heard about them... over, and over, and over, and over. Can we just please talk about something else? I hear there's a guy named Bonds who hasn't been talked about enough.
3. He can't make up his damned mind - For a man who is supposedly a maverick or a gunslinger or some other romanticized Wild West cliche, he sure can't make a decision. If he showed as much restraint and forethought when he played football as he does when thinking about whether he wants to play football, he might not be the career leader in interceptions. But no, when he's not flinging around a football, he's wishy-washy and indecisive. Maybe the Packers need to send a linebacker blitz after him during the offseason to get him to make a decision. What compounds this problem is that his indecisiveness makes reason #4 exponentially more annoying because all anyone can talk about is what he's going to do. When he finally "retired" earlier this year, I was able to survive the weeks of tributes and gushing about him because I thought it meant I wouldn't have to hear about him anymore. But noooooooo, he just had to get "the itch", which means not only will he be around longer, but when he re-retires, we'll have to go through all this garbage again! Which brings us to...
2. He's selfish - I understand that it's tough deciding when to retire, that you only get one life and you have to make the most of it, but come on! If you think you might want to play again, then don't f-ing retire! If you retire but get "the itch", put on some Gold Bond or BOOM, tough-actin' Tinactin, as the Brett-Favre Fan Club President John Madden would recommend, and gut it out. The itch will pass. Don't go changing your mind and screwing with your team, your fans, and especially those who despise you and wish you would disappear. Let the Packers move on, like they had been planning. Let your fans honor your career, then move on and find someone else to admire. And let the rest of us be rid of your annoying presence. Don't give a big middle finger to everyone by coming back and then demanding you get your job back, or else you'll go work elsewhere.
1. He's given me reason to not hate the Packers as much - This may be Brett's greatest crime of all. For all the reasons he's given me, a Vikings fan, to despise the Packers, to pull something like this is just a low blow. Why has he given me reason to think better of the Packers? Because of the way they've handled the situation, by telling him he can't come back and expect his job back, and that they won't just release him to go play elsewhere. They've told him they're doing things on their terms and that, as much as he's done for the franchise, he can't call the shots. I respect that, and it pisses me off. Leave it to Brett to be the one person who could douse the flames of my hatred for the Packers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
