Man, a lot of stuff happened today. And LA was at the center of a good amount of it. First, they officially agreed to a deal to host the 2028 Olympics (which we all knew was going to happen). Then the Dodgers, who were already the best team in baseball, got a whole lot better. They're going to be playing in October. We already knew that. That's not enough for the Dodgers. Their trades for Yu Darvish and two relievers today made it perfectly clear that they expect to be playing until the end of October.
Last season, we saw the Cubs go all-in as they attempted to break their 108-year curse. It worked, as Aroldis Chapman's left arm carried them to their first World Series title since 1908. The Dodgers' wait hasn't been quite that long. But for a team that's accustomed to winning, 29 years without even playing in the World Series is a long time. As one of their players said last week, "We're tired of seeing highlights from 1988 on the scoreboard." Well, the chances of 2017 highlights being played on the Dodger Stadium scoreboard, which were already good, have gone up exponentially.
Clayton Kershaw is the best pitcher on the planet. LA hasn't lost a game that he started since early May. But, Kershaw's way of proving that he actually is human is to go on the DL with back problems. That's where he currently is. The Dodgers insist he'll be fine for the playoffs, and they have no reason to rush him back before he's ready. But, unless you're the 2014 Giants, you can't win the World Series with one pitcher. Especially not one who isn't 100 percent.
Did the Dodgers need to get insurance behind Kershaw? Maybe. Their offense is so ridiculous that their starting pitching just needed to be good enough. But there are injury concerns with the other guys, too. Enter Yu Darvish. He was expected to be one of the highest-profile starters on the move, but I don't think anyone saw the Dodgers coming. Yet they swooped in at the 11th hour, giving themselves a solid No. 2 behind Kershaw and proving to everyone that they're all-in to win this year.
If this team had one flaw, it was the bullpen. The Dodgers' pitching between the starters and Kenley Jansen was suspect at best. So they took care of that problem, too. In fact, they took care of it twice. They got a pair of lefty set up guys--Tony Watson from Pittsburgh and Tony Cigriani from Cincinnati. Suddenly that bullpen just got a lot more formidable. And now they have the lefties to counter Bryce Harper and Daniel Murphy for a potential NLCS matchup against Washington.
Speaking of the Nationals, they, like the Dodgers, have had nothing but playoff disappointment in recent seasons. And like the Dodgers, their biggest area of need was the bullpen. They knew it, which is why they struck early to get Oakland's Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle. And today they made their bullpen that much better by getting Twins All-Star closer Brandon Kintzler.
I'm not saying the Dodgers and Nationals are on a collision course for the NLCS. Playoff baseball is too unpredictable to make that claim. But they're head-and-shoulders above the rest of the National League (sorry, Cubs), and the only team I can see beating one is the other.
Meanwhile, in the American League, it's hard not to like what the Yankees have done. That trade with the White Sox improved an already solid bullpen. But as good as that bullpen is, they weren't going to do any winning in October with the starting rotation the way it was. You can't say that anymore. Sure, Gray to the Yankees had seemed inevitable for weeks. That doesn't change the fact that this trade (and the trade for Jaime Garcia, which now gives them six starters) has made the Yankees, who haven't won a playoff game in five years, the favorites in the AL East.
In fact, I'd even venture to say that they're the favorites in the entire American League. Yes, Houston has been the best team in the AL all season. But the Astros didn't really do anything to improve themselves, and their starting pitching is a major question mark. And, as we've seen time and again, it's hard to outslug everybody in the playoffs.
Which brings me back to the Dodgers. They can easily outscore you (their run differential of +185 is easily the largest in baseball). But pitching is what wins in October. Their pitching was already good (they're the only team that's allowed fewer than 400 runs this season). Now it's a whole lot better. And, it's more than just Kershaw.
Like the 2009 Yankees, last year's Cubs were so much better than everybody else that it would've been a shock if they didn't win the World Series. The 2017 Dodgers have entered that territory. They can go 26-31 the rest of the way and still win 100 games!
The World Series is more than two months away, but the Dodgers fully expect to be there. And who can blame them? They were already the best team in baseball. Now they're even better.
Monday, July 31, 2017
Saturday, July 29, 2017
Obscure Sports of the World Games
Part of my excitement for the launch of the Olympic Channel a few weeks ago was the opportunity to watch the World Games for the first time. I knew what the World Games were, but I'd never seen many of the sports that make up the program, so I was curious to see them. And it's definitely a mixed bag.
The World Games were first held in 1981 and are the "Olympics for non-Olympic sports." In fact, current Olympic sports such as badminton, beach volleyball, triathlon and rugby were first featured in the World Games, and I think the IOC requires World Games inclusion before a sport can be considered for the Olympics (although I'm not sure surfing and skateboarding have ever been in the World Games).
Sport climbing, for example, will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo, and we got a sneak peek of the sport in Wroclaw (the site of this year's World Games). Likewise, karate, which has been a staple of the World Games program, will be featured in the Olympics for the first time in Tokyo. So, this could very well have been the final World Games appearance for both sports, since once a sport's in the Olympics, it's no longer in the World Games, making their status uncertain for 2021 in Birmingham, Alabama (yes, the next World Games are in Birmingham, Alabama).
Although, Olympic inclusion doesn't completely eliminate a sport from the World Games program. Rhythmic gymnastics is in both. In the Olympics, there's a team event and an individual all-around. Those two events aren't in the World Games, but individual event finals (think the apparatus finals in regular gymnastics) are. Same thing with trampoline. The individual event is in the Olympics, so it's not in the World Games, but plenty of other trampoline events are.
Archery, meanwhile, features in both Games, although it's completely different versions of the sport. In the Olympics, it's straight shooting at the target 70 meters away. In the World Games, the targets are really small, I have no idea how far they are, and there are like trees and stuff in the way. It's kinda like the way hunting with a bow & arrow must've been.
There are also the sports (like sport climbing) that would be great fits in the Olympic program, but are biding their time in the World Games until then. Like squash, which I've advocated for, and roller speed skating (roller figure skating is part of the World Games, too, but probably much farther from Olympic inclusion).
As for the rest of the World Games sports, they're definitely a mixed bag. There's a bunch that you could see possibly being in an Olympics someday if they opened them up to more sports, but seem destined (at least for the time being) to have the World Games be their ultimate showcase. Some are pretty cool, some are downright strange (if not really stupid). And there are variations of existing Olympic sports.
So what sports are featured in the World Games? Acrobatics. Billiards, a bunch of different types. Orienteering, which is basically being given a map and sent running through the city. Kickboxing. Water skiing/wakeboarding. "Air sports," a general grouping that includes parachuting and other events that involve a plane. Canoe polo (which is a misnomer, since it's played in kayaks). Power lifting factors body weight into the final score, an idea that Olympic weightlifting would be smart to adopt.
One of my favorite World Games sports is beach handball (yes, for the obvious reason). There's one element of the sport I don't understand, though. They play two timed "sets," and if the teams split the sets they go to a shootout. But if the "sets" are timed, why not just call them "halves" and use the cumulative score to determine the winner?
Beach handball isn't the only team sport in the World Games. There's also roller hockey and ultimate frisbee (which is called "flying disc"). They even had a football tournament, but that's not an official World Games sport, and women's lacrosse is making its debut this year. Floorball is pretty much floor hockey. Fistball actually looks pretty cool. The easiest way to describe it is volleyball where you can only punch it (one bounce is allowed) played outdoors on a field that's probably similar to the size of a lacrosse field.
Then there's korfball. Korfball definitely qualifies as one of the strangest sports I've ever seen. It's kinda like basketball, except the hoop doesn't have a backboard and is in the middle of the court (where a lacrosse goal would be). Oh, and the teams are coed.
But korfball isn't the only World Games sport that left me scratching my head. I'm just as confused about lifesaving. Now, when I heard lifesaving was in the World Games, I figured it was the type Australians are good at where you run out into the ocean and do various lifesaving skills in open water. But no. This takes place in a pool. It's essentially regular swimming, except they swim to one end of the pool, pick up a mannequin and bring it back. Or the "obstacle race" involves swimming under a flag in the water. Why not just do regular swimming (which I can also say about the World Games sport of finswimming)?
Nevertheless, it's definitely been fun watching the World Games. If nothing else, it's been worthwhile seeing some of these sports for the first time. I've gained a new appreciation for some, and may even find myself rooting for them to be added to the Olympic program in the future. (Let's not get carried away, though. I'm not planning a trip to Alabama for the World Games four years from now.)
The World Games were first held in 1981 and are the "Olympics for non-Olympic sports." In fact, current Olympic sports such as badminton, beach volleyball, triathlon and rugby were first featured in the World Games, and I think the IOC requires World Games inclusion before a sport can be considered for the Olympics (although I'm not sure surfing and skateboarding have ever been in the World Games).
Sport climbing, for example, will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo, and we got a sneak peek of the sport in Wroclaw (the site of this year's World Games). Likewise, karate, which has been a staple of the World Games program, will be featured in the Olympics for the first time in Tokyo. So, this could very well have been the final World Games appearance for both sports, since once a sport's in the Olympics, it's no longer in the World Games, making their status uncertain for 2021 in Birmingham, Alabama (yes, the next World Games are in Birmingham, Alabama).
Although, Olympic inclusion doesn't completely eliminate a sport from the World Games program. Rhythmic gymnastics is in both. In the Olympics, there's a team event and an individual all-around. Those two events aren't in the World Games, but individual event finals (think the apparatus finals in regular gymnastics) are. Same thing with trampoline. The individual event is in the Olympics, so it's not in the World Games, but plenty of other trampoline events are.
Archery, meanwhile, features in both Games, although it's completely different versions of the sport. In the Olympics, it's straight shooting at the target 70 meters away. In the World Games, the targets are really small, I have no idea how far they are, and there are like trees and stuff in the way. It's kinda like the way hunting with a bow & arrow must've been.
There are also the sports (like sport climbing) that would be great fits in the Olympic program, but are biding their time in the World Games until then. Like squash, which I've advocated for, and roller speed skating (roller figure skating is part of the World Games, too, but probably much farther from Olympic inclusion).
As for the rest of the World Games sports, they're definitely a mixed bag. There's a bunch that you could see possibly being in an Olympics someday if they opened them up to more sports, but seem destined (at least for the time being) to have the World Games be their ultimate showcase. Some are pretty cool, some are downright strange (if not really stupid). And there are variations of existing Olympic sports.
So what sports are featured in the World Games? Acrobatics. Billiards, a bunch of different types. Orienteering, which is basically being given a map and sent running through the city. Kickboxing. Water skiing/wakeboarding. "Air sports," a general grouping that includes parachuting and other events that involve a plane. Canoe polo (which is a misnomer, since it's played in kayaks). Power lifting factors body weight into the final score, an idea that Olympic weightlifting would be smart to adopt.
One of my favorite World Games sports is beach handball (yes, for the obvious reason). There's one element of the sport I don't understand, though. They play two timed "sets," and if the teams split the sets they go to a shootout. But if the "sets" are timed, why not just call them "halves" and use the cumulative score to determine the winner?
Beach handball isn't the only team sport in the World Games. There's also roller hockey and ultimate frisbee (which is called "flying disc"). They even had a football tournament, but that's not an official World Games sport, and women's lacrosse is making its debut this year. Floorball is pretty much floor hockey. Fistball actually looks pretty cool. The easiest way to describe it is volleyball where you can only punch it (one bounce is allowed) played outdoors on a field that's probably similar to the size of a lacrosse field.
Then there's korfball. Korfball definitely qualifies as one of the strangest sports I've ever seen. It's kinda like basketball, except the hoop doesn't have a backboard and is in the middle of the court (where a lacrosse goal would be). Oh, and the teams are coed.
But korfball isn't the only World Games sport that left me scratching my head. I'm just as confused about lifesaving. Now, when I heard lifesaving was in the World Games, I figured it was the type Australians are good at where you run out into the ocean and do various lifesaving skills in open water. But no. This takes place in a pool. It's essentially regular swimming, except they swim to one end of the pool, pick up a mannequin and bring it back. Or the "obstacle race" involves swimming under a flag in the water. Why not just do regular swimming (which I can also say about the World Games sport of finswimming)?
Nevertheless, it's definitely been fun watching the World Games. If nothing else, it's been worthwhile seeing some of these sports for the first time. I've gained a new appreciation for some, and may even find myself rooting for them to be added to the Olympic program in the future. (Let's not get carried away, though. I'm not planning a trip to Alabama for the World Games four years from now.)
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Rejecting Relegation
As I sit here watching the Gold Cup final, I can't help thinking about the news announced the other day about MLS, the league that provides many of the players on the national teams in the Americas. It was the talk of the sports media world when it became public. MLS rejected a $4 billion TV deal, which would've quadrupled the league's current deal with ESPN and FOX.
Why? Because the new deal would've required promotion and relegation, which made it a non-starter for MLS. FIFA has long called for MLS to institute a promotion/relegation system like every other top-flight league in the world, and MLS has continually rejected the notion. But this was the strongest statement yet that promotion/relegation isn't happening in MLS anytime soon...likely ever.
It's worth noting here that there were definitely ulterior motives behind this promotion/relegation mandate. The offer was made by the international media company MP & Silva, which just happens to own Miami FC, which currently plays in the NASL. And with MLS poised to award David Beckham an expansion team in the city, Miami FC's chances of joining MLS would appear to be slim to none. Unless, of course, they were to earn promotion from the lower league.
MLS could've just given Silva a flat "No," but was actually pretty diplomatic in its response. For starters, the current TV contract doesn't expire until 2023, so we're talking six years down the road. And, regardless, ESPN and FOX have an exclusive window to renegotiate the rights before they can even be opened up to other bids. That and, as the MLS VP for communications pointed out, the league deals directly with the networks in negotiations, not third parties...before throwing in at the end, "We are not in a position, nor are we interested, in engaging with Mr. Silva on his proposal."
So, in my eyes, this was nothing more than a blatant attempt by Silva to draw attention to himself. He's a disgruntled NASL owner who's frustrated his team can't get into MLS. He's trying to make them out to be the bad guys, but the explanation offered by MLS is beyond reasonable. In fact, it kinda makes him look like an idiot. If nothing can change until six years from now at the earliest, why even bring it up? Unless it's for self-serving purposes?
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons MLS has no interest in implementing a promotion/relegation system. Perhaps the most obvious is that there are two leagues that could be considered "Triple A." Would you promote a team from the NASL or the USL? Or both? (Although, you could always relegate two and promote one from each.)
There are also expansion plans in the works for MLS, beyond just Beckham's Miami team. Their goal is to have 28 teams by the end of the decade, which would make MLS the largest top-flight league in the world. With expansion fees at $150 million apiece, four additional teams means an extra $600 million to spread among the existing owners. Promotion and relegation wouldn't just make potential owners less willing to pay that expansion fee, it would decrease the existing franchise values (how much to English clubs lose in a given year when they're relegated from the Premier League?).
Besides, just because a team plays in the NASL doesn't mean they can't eventually join MLS. The Montreal Impact started as an NASL team. So did the Vancouver Whitecaps. So did the Portland Timbers. So did Minnesota United. And some of the cities under consideration for expansion (St. Louis, Nashville, Indianapolis) are being considered mainly because they have successful second-tier teams.
The main reason why MLS refuses to even consider a promotion/relegation system, though, is because they don't need to. After 20 years, they've found their place as the fifth major professional North American sport. Sure, there are the people who prefer the Premier League and deride MLS as "second-rate" compared to European leagues, but there's no denying MLS has found a business model that works...and has no need to mess with it!
In fact, Silva's proposal is, in a way, a great compliment to MLS. Just think, MLS was created primarily as a condition of the U.S. getting the World Cup. Now, 20 years later, its place on the North American sports scene is secure and it's so financially stable that the league just keeps growing. MLS is so stable that potential owners are chomping at the bit to join the party. Who ever could've seen that coming?
Why? Because the new deal would've required promotion and relegation, which made it a non-starter for MLS. FIFA has long called for MLS to institute a promotion/relegation system like every other top-flight league in the world, and MLS has continually rejected the notion. But this was the strongest statement yet that promotion/relegation isn't happening in MLS anytime soon...likely ever.
It's worth noting here that there were definitely ulterior motives behind this promotion/relegation mandate. The offer was made by the international media company MP & Silva, which just happens to own Miami FC, which currently plays in the NASL. And with MLS poised to award David Beckham an expansion team in the city, Miami FC's chances of joining MLS would appear to be slim to none. Unless, of course, they were to earn promotion from the lower league.
MLS could've just given Silva a flat "No," but was actually pretty diplomatic in its response. For starters, the current TV contract doesn't expire until 2023, so we're talking six years down the road. And, regardless, ESPN and FOX have an exclusive window to renegotiate the rights before they can even be opened up to other bids. That and, as the MLS VP for communications pointed out, the league deals directly with the networks in negotiations, not third parties...before throwing in at the end, "We are not in a position, nor are we interested, in engaging with Mr. Silva on his proposal."
So, in my eyes, this was nothing more than a blatant attempt by Silva to draw attention to himself. He's a disgruntled NASL owner who's frustrated his team can't get into MLS. He's trying to make them out to be the bad guys, but the explanation offered by MLS is beyond reasonable. In fact, it kinda makes him look like an idiot. If nothing can change until six years from now at the earliest, why even bring it up? Unless it's for self-serving purposes?
Of course, there are plenty of other reasons MLS has no interest in implementing a promotion/relegation system. Perhaps the most obvious is that there are two leagues that could be considered "Triple A." Would you promote a team from the NASL or the USL? Or both? (Although, you could always relegate two and promote one from each.)
There are also expansion plans in the works for MLS, beyond just Beckham's Miami team. Their goal is to have 28 teams by the end of the decade, which would make MLS the largest top-flight league in the world. With expansion fees at $150 million apiece, four additional teams means an extra $600 million to spread among the existing owners. Promotion and relegation wouldn't just make potential owners less willing to pay that expansion fee, it would decrease the existing franchise values (how much to English clubs lose in a given year when they're relegated from the Premier League?).
Besides, just because a team plays in the NASL doesn't mean they can't eventually join MLS. The Montreal Impact started as an NASL team. So did the Vancouver Whitecaps. So did the Portland Timbers. So did Minnesota United. And some of the cities under consideration for expansion (St. Louis, Nashville, Indianapolis) are being considered mainly because they have successful second-tier teams.
The main reason why MLS refuses to even consider a promotion/relegation system, though, is because they don't need to. After 20 years, they've found their place as the fifth major professional North American sport. Sure, there are the people who prefer the Premier League and deride MLS as "second-rate" compared to European leagues, but there's no denying MLS has found a business model that works...and has no need to mess with it!
In fact, Silva's proposal is, in a way, a great compliment to MLS. Just think, MLS was created primarily as a condition of the U.S. getting the World Cup. Now, 20 years later, its place on the North American sports scene is secure and it's so financially stable that the league just keeps growing. MLS is so stable that potential owners are chomping at the bit to join the party. Who ever could've seen that coming?
Monday, July 24, 2017
Switch BP Times
With the Yankees headed back home for the first time since the All*Star Break, I got to thinking about something that was discussed a lot during the Home Run Derby, where Aaron Judge put on a show. Aaron Judge puts on a show during batting practice everyday. Yet Yankees fans never get to see that show unless they go to a road game.
It's a long-standing baseball practice that the home team hits first in batting practice. This is standard across the Major Leagues, and I'd imagine it's the same in the Minors. What I'm not sure of is whether or not it's a rule that the home team has to go first. But I wouldn't imagine Because it doesn't really make that much sense.
In college baseball, it makes complete sense that the home team takes batting practice first. The visiting team is most likely traveling by bus from either their campus or a hotel. By taking batting practice second, they have extra travel time and no long break between BP and the game.
I would imagine that travel considerations are part of the reason Major League Baseball has kept that traditional order of home team first/road team second. (Although, how many road teams are traveling any further than from a hotel to the ballpark these days?) It's also very familiar to the players, who have their pregame routines that they've become comfortable with. Are those good enough reasons to stick with the status quo, though?
Major League Baseball is evidently looking into the batting practice order and considering a change. Which they should. Because Aaron Judge isn't the only player who puts on a show during BP. There are plenty of sluggers who do. Except they're doing it in empty stadiums. Even the fans who come early to check out BP don't get to see them. Because they're doing it before the gates open!
Fans aren't coming to the ballpark early to watch the visiting team take batting practice. They don't care who the guys on the other team are. They just want a baseball. But if you switched the order and had the home team bat second (just like in the game), my prediction is that the number of people who come early to watch BP would at least double. And they wouldn't just be trying to catch a home run ball, either. They'd be there to watch the Aaron Judge Show. Or the Giancarlo Stanton Show. Or the (insert hometown slugger here) show.
The Yankees understand the ridiculous desire their fans have to watch Aaron Judge take batting practice. That was one of the reasons they had the "BP Block Party" earlier this season, where they opened the gates an hour earlier so that fans could, among other activities, watch the Yankees take BP. Of course, it started to rain, so the BP part of the BP Block Party ended early, but the idea is one that more teams should embrace.
When I told my dad about the BP Block Party and everything they were doing, he told me about how much fun he used to have when he was a kid and would do the same thing. Except they did it all the time back then. The game started at 2:00 and they opened the gates at 11:00, meaning the hometown fans would get to watch Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and Yogi Berra take batting practice every day. Nowadays, the only batting practice you get to see is the other team.
A simple solution would be to just to do what they did back then and open the gates an hour earlier. However, it's a lot to ask of the fans to spend three hours at the ballpark before the game even starts (even if it does mean you'll have significantly more beer sales). There's no reason to open the gates early, though. Not when there's an even better solution out there.
Baseball is for the fans. And the fans don't want to just hear the stories about the majestic bombs Aaron Judge hits in batting practice. They want to see them for themselves. Right now, they can't do that. But if Baseball simply switched the batting practice times and had the home team hit second, after the gates open, they'll be able to. And it'll be a win-win for everybody.
It's a long-standing baseball practice that the home team hits first in batting practice. This is standard across the Major Leagues, and I'd imagine it's the same in the Minors. What I'm not sure of is whether or not it's a rule that the home team has to go first. But I wouldn't imagine Because it doesn't really make that much sense.
In college baseball, it makes complete sense that the home team takes batting practice first. The visiting team is most likely traveling by bus from either their campus or a hotel. By taking batting practice second, they have extra travel time and no long break between BP and the game.
I would imagine that travel considerations are part of the reason Major League Baseball has kept that traditional order of home team first/road team second. (Although, how many road teams are traveling any further than from a hotel to the ballpark these days?) It's also very familiar to the players, who have their pregame routines that they've become comfortable with. Are those good enough reasons to stick with the status quo, though?
Major League Baseball is evidently looking into the batting practice order and considering a change. Which they should. Because Aaron Judge isn't the only player who puts on a show during BP. There are plenty of sluggers who do. Except they're doing it in empty stadiums. Even the fans who come early to check out BP don't get to see them. Because they're doing it before the gates open!
Fans aren't coming to the ballpark early to watch the visiting team take batting practice. They don't care who the guys on the other team are. They just want a baseball. But if you switched the order and had the home team bat second (just like in the game), my prediction is that the number of people who come early to watch BP would at least double. And they wouldn't just be trying to catch a home run ball, either. They'd be there to watch the Aaron Judge Show. Or the Giancarlo Stanton Show. Or the (insert hometown slugger here) show.
The Yankees understand the ridiculous desire their fans have to watch Aaron Judge take batting practice. That was one of the reasons they had the "BP Block Party" earlier this season, where they opened the gates an hour earlier so that fans could, among other activities, watch the Yankees take BP. Of course, it started to rain, so the BP part of the BP Block Party ended early, but the idea is one that more teams should embrace.
When I told my dad about the BP Block Party and everything they were doing, he told me about how much fun he used to have when he was a kid and would do the same thing. Except they did it all the time back then. The game started at 2:00 and they opened the gates at 11:00, meaning the hometown fans would get to watch Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris and Yogi Berra take batting practice every day. Nowadays, the only batting practice you get to see is the other team.
A simple solution would be to just to do what they did back then and open the gates an hour earlier. However, it's a lot to ask of the fans to spend three hours at the ballpark before the game even starts (even if it does mean you'll have significantly more beer sales). There's no reason to open the gates early, though. Not when there's an even better solution out there.
Baseball is for the fans. And the fans don't want to just hear the stories about the majestic bombs Aaron Judge hits in batting practice. They want to see them for themselves. Right now, they can't do that. But if Baseball simply switched the batting practice times and had the home team hit second, after the gates open, they'll be able to. And it'll be a win-win for everybody.
Friday, July 21, 2017
Basketball Everyday
Did I miss something? When did basketball become the American version of European soccer? Is there something in ESPN's NBA contract that requires them to have some sort of basketball game on 365 days a year? Because that's literally the only reason I can think of why a new ridiculous summer basketball tournament pops up every week...and ESPN treats each one like it's the freakin' NCAA Tournament!
Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking this, so I'll get it out of the way up front. This has nothing to do with my not liking the NBA. I enjoy the sport of basketball. I just don't need to watch it 12 months a year. Especially when it's not even good basketball.
And is there really so little on in the summer that ESPN needs to cover the NBA Summer League like it's the actual regular season (which is only slightly less meaningless than the Summer League)? Seriously, why am I seeing NBA Summer League scores on the freakin' ticker before baseball scores?! Why am I seeing basketball scores at all in the middle of July? Unless it's some sort of international FIBA tournament, any basketball game played during the summer is, frankly, pretty irrelevant. And anybody who doesn't think that is simply fooling themselves.
Let's start with the NBA Summer League. Why does ESPN care so much? It's essentially the NFL preseason, except worse, because the starters aren't even there. It's literally the guys they just drafted like a week before, some unsigned free agents, and a bunch of players "trying out" who are only there because they need to fill out their rosters. You're basically watching the NBA D-League. Yet ESPN would have you believe these are make-or-break games. Why else did we get those constant Lonzo Ball updates?
The NBA Summer League at least has a legitimate purpose. It's the first opportunity coaches have to work with their rookies, and it gives the rookies their first real taste of the NBA game, even if it is the Bud Light version. It's like OTAs in the NFL. Except you know the difference between OTAs and the NBA Summer League? The NFL knows no one wants to watch OTAs, so they don't put them on TV!
However, I haven't found an actual purpose for either The Basketball Tournament or that new Allen Iverson 3x3 thing. The Basketball Tournament especially. As far as I can tell, the sole reason that thing exists is to give an extra 15 minutes to former college players who couldn't let go and move on with their lives. It's their chance to prove that they're still "basketball players." It's their NBA.
It's an ego thing. Nothing more. And the fact that it's on ESPN only exacerbates the problem. Now you're getting those 15 minutes on a national stage. And, who knows, maybe an NBA scout will be watching, see you can still play, and offer you a shot. That scenario, of course, is highly unlikely. But I have no doubt there are guys playing in these tournaments who think that.
"Basketball players" can be found everywhere. How many people out there have absolutely no talent, but think they can play in the NBA? Well dude, I've got news for you. You might be a star in those pickup games in the park against 40-year-olds, but if you've never played competitively at any level (or you were "on the team," but just sat on the bench), you're not going to the NBA!
ESPN isn't helping these people in any way. In fact, they're only making things worse by giving them this avenue to "show off" their talents. Just like it's not helping the former pros or former college players who are desperately trying to stay relevant (or become relevant again).
I could be wrong. People might actually watch these games, and I bet there are even people who actually care. The ratings could justify their existence and explain why we have a new tournament every week. I also have no idea what the attendance at these things is. Maybe I'm totally off base and there's a large enough percentage of the population that these events actually make money.
But there's no denying ESPN is trying too hard to make these events a "thing." We've long known that ESPN is obsessed with the NBA, but maybe it's just basketball in general that our friends in Bristol are obsessed with. That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're trying to give America a year-round sport, whether it wants one or not.
Now, I know a lot of you are probably thinking this, so I'll get it out of the way up front. This has nothing to do with my not liking the NBA. I enjoy the sport of basketball. I just don't need to watch it 12 months a year. Especially when it's not even good basketball.
And is there really so little on in the summer that ESPN needs to cover the NBA Summer League like it's the actual regular season (which is only slightly less meaningless than the Summer League)? Seriously, why am I seeing NBA Summer League scores on the freakin' ticker before baseball scores?! Why am I seeing basketball scores at all in the middle of July? Unless it's some sort of international FIBA tournament, any basketball game played during the summer is, frankly, pretty irrelevant. And anybody who doesn't think that is simply fooling themselves.
Let's start with the NBA Summer League. Why does ESPN care so much? It's essentially the NFL preseason, except worse, because the starters aren't even there. It's literally the guys they just drafted like a week before, some unsigned free agents, and a bunch of players "trying out" who are only there because they need to fill out their rosters. You're basically watching the NBA D-League. Yet ESPN would have you believe these are make-or-break games. Why else did we get those constant Lonzo Ball updates?
The NBA Summer League at least has a legitimate purpose. It's the first opportunity coaches have to work with their rookies, and it gives the rookies their first real taste of the NBA game, even if it is the Bud Light version. It's like OTAs in the NFL. Except you know the difference between OTAs and the NBA Summer League? The NFL knows no one wants to watch OTAs, so they don't put them on TV!
However, I haven't found an actual purpose for either The Basketball Tournament or that new Allen Iverson 3x3 thing. The Basketball Tournament especially. As far as I can tell, the sole reason that thing exists is to give an extra 15 minutes to former college players who couldn't let go and move on with their lives. It's their chance to prove that they're still "basketball players." It's their NBA.
It's an ego thing. Nothing more. And the fact that it's on ESPN only exacerbates the problem. Now you're getting those 15 minutes on a national stage. And, who knows, maybe an NBA scout will be watching, see you can still play, and offer you a shot. That scenario, of course, is highly unlikely. But I have no doubt there are guys playing in these tournaments who think that.
"Basketball players" can be found everywhere. How many people out there have absolutely no talent, but think they can play in the NBA? Well dude, I've got news for you. You might be a star in those pickup games in the park against 40-year-olds, but if you've never played competitively at any level (or you were "on the team," but just sat on the bench), you're not going to the NBA!
ESPN isn't helping these people in any way. In fact, they're only making things worse by giving them this avenue to "show off" their talents. Just like it's not helping the former pros or former college players who are desperately trying to stay relevant (or become relevant again).
I could be wrong. People might actually watch these games, and I bet there are even people who actually care. The ratings could justify their existence and explain why we have a new tournament every week. I also have no idea what the attendance at these things is. Maybe I'm totally off base and there's a large enough percentage of the population that these events actually make money.
But there's no denying ESPN is trying too hard to make these events a "thing." We've long known that ESPN is obsessed with the NBA, but maybe it's just basketball in general that our friends in Bristol are obsessed with. That's the only explanation I can think of as to why they're trying to give America a year-round sport, whether it wants one or not.
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Who Else Will Move?
The other day, I looked ahead towards the baseball trading deadline by examining what I thought were the biggest needs for some contending teams. Well, the ball started rolling almost immediately, with Jose Quintana switching Chicago teams and the Nationals addressing their bullpen needs by getting Ryan Madson and Sean Doolittle from Oakland, then the Yankees pulled off that blockbuster with the White Sox, bringing Todd Frazier and David Robertson to the Bronx.
That was just a start. There's still two weeks left until the deadline. You know plenty of other guys are getting moved. But who? Well, there are several names that I feel pretty confident will move. Where they might go is another question.
Sonny Gray, A's: He's probably the best starting pitcher you know is being shopped. Houston would like to add a starter, but I don't see Oakland trading him within the division. That leaves the Yankees as the other best fit and, in my opinion, Gray's most likely destination. The Yankees already needed a starter, and Michael Pineda needing Tommy John surgery made that need even more pressing. And, with the haul of prospects acquired in last year's trades, they have the players to make the deal worthwhile for the A's.
Brad Hand, Padres: Something tells me Hand is going to end up in Boston. Outside of Craig Kimbrel, the Red Sox bullpen is not very good (neither is their lineup for that matter). If they're going to have any shot at making a run deep into October, adding a reliever is a must. And there are worse options than an All-Star lefty setup guy.
Pat Neshek, Phillies: Speaking of All-Star setup guys... Neshek brings additional value because he has all that postseason experience with the Cardinals. I'm assuming the Phillies won't let the Nationals anywhere near him, but I do think Neshek will likely stay in the National League. They already don't lose, but just imagine how much more unbeatable the Dodgers would be if they could plug Neshek in there between the starters and Jansen.
Jay Bruce, Mets: They aren't going to make the playoffs and they have like six starting outfielders, which means the Mets are probably going to deal at least one of them. And Bruce, who they got as a quasi-rental last year, seems like the most likely candidate. His contract is up at the end of the year, so Bruce would be one of those two-month rentals. I would've said Arizona before they got J.D. Martinez. But he got hit by a pitch in the hand in his first game with the Diamondbacks, so an outfielder might be back on the table for them.
Yonder Alonso, A's: Who doesn't need a lefty power bat off the bench? I think this one could be the surprise. I have a feeling Alonso will be traded. I just have no idea where. That's why I see a team coming out of nowhere and snatching him up. For some reason, I see Colorado being the ones to make that move. Or Milwaukee.
Matt Adams, Braves: Freddie Freeman moved to third so that Adams could stay at first. Who does that help, though? The Braves aren't good, Freeman's not a third baseman, and Adams can't play defense. He's the second coming of Adam Dunn. He should be DHing for an American League team. If Kansas City decides they're in it and choose to be buyers rather than sellers, I can see Adams helping them out down the stretch, then potentially taking over at first next year if Hosmer leaves as a free agent.
Mike Moustakas, Royals: However, if the Royals fall out of it, it's very realistic to envision them unloading some of their pending free agents. And Boston has coveted Mike Moustakas for months. Especially now that Todd Frazier's in New York, the Red Sox could panic and give up too much for Moustakas. Although, if he were to go to the Red Sox, that wouldn't necessarily be a rental. Since you know they're gonna go after him hard in the offseason wherever he finishes 2017.
Darren O'Day and/or Brad Brach, Orioles: Baltimore's got an abundance of relievers, and I can see the Orioles unloading at least one of them at the deadline. Cleveland's trade for and brilliant use of Andrew Miller was one of the primary reasons why they got to extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series last year. Can lightning strike twice with either Brach or O'Day?
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays: Out of all the Blue Jays starters, Sanchez seems like the most likely to be dealt (assuming they trade any of them at all). Yes, they'd probably get more for Marcus Stroman, but we all know how much the Blue Jays love their wannabe shortstop, so that's probably not happening. Sanchez, who's a free agent after the season and making only half a million though...that's a different story. He's the one you can easily see heading to Houston.
Melky Cabrera, White Sox: Believe it or not, the White Sox still have some players left on the roster! It might not be for long, though, since Melky Cabrera might be the next one to move. Especially since he's a proven postseason contributor. And a switch hitter. A team like Washington could certainly use him.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of wheeling and dealing going on over the next two weeks. Last year, we saw the Cubs and Indians both get to the World Series on the strength of their deadline moves (with a little help from the Yankees). Can somebody do the same this year? It's gonna be really interesting to see.
That was just a start. There's still two weeks left until the deadline. You know plenty of other guys are getting moved. But who? Well, there are several names that I feel pretty confident will move. Where they might go is another question.
Sonny Gray, A's: He's probably the best starting pitcher you know is being shopped. Houston would like to add a starter, but I don't see Oakland trading him within the division. That leaves the Yankees as the other best fit and, in my opinion, Gray's most likely destination. The Yankees already needed a starter, and Michael Pineda needing Tommy John surgery made that need even more pressing. And, with the haul of prospects acquired in last year's trades, they have the players to make the deal worthwhile for the A's.
Brad Hand, Padres: Something tells me Hand is going to end up in Boston. Outside of Craig Kimbrel, the Red Sox bullpen is not very good (neither is their lineup for that matter). If they're going to have any shot at making a run deep into October, adding a reliever is a must. And there are worse options than an All-Star lefty setup guy.
Pat Neshek, Phillies: Speaking of All-Star setup guys... Neshek brings additional value because he has all that postseason experience with the Cardinals. I'm assuming the Phillies won't let the Nationals anywhere near him, but I do think Neshek will likely stay in the National League. They already don't lose, but just imagine how much more unbeatable the Dodgers would be if they could plug Neshek in there between the starters and Jansen.
Jay Bruce, Mets: They aren't going to make the playoffs and they have like six starting outfielders, which means the Mets are probably going to deal at least one of them. And Bruce, who they got as a quasi-rental last year, seems like the most likely candidate. His contract is up at the end of the year, so Bruce would be one of those two-month rentals. I would've said Arizona before they got J.D. Martinez. But he got hit by a pitch in the hand in his first game with the Diamondbacks, so an outfielder might be back on the table for them.
Yonder Alonso, A's: Who doesn't need a lefty power bat off the bench? I think this one could be the surprise. I have a feeling Alonso will be traded. I just have no idea where. That's why I see a team coming out of nowhere and snatching him up. For some reason, I see Colorado being the ones to make that move. Or Milwaukee.
Matt Adams, Braves: Freddie Freeman moved to third so that Adams could stay at first. Who does that help, though? The Braves aren't good, Freeman's not a third baseman, and Adams can't play defense. He's the second coming of Adam Dunn. He should be DHing for an American League team. If Kansas City decides they're in it and choose to be buyers rather than sellers, I can see Adams helping them out down the stretch, then potentially taking over at first next year if Hosmer leaves as a free agent.
Mike Moustakas, Royals: However, if the Royals fall out of it, it's very realistic to envision them unloading some of their pending free agents. And Boston has coveted Mike Moustakas for months. Especially now that Todd Frazier's in New York, the Red Sox could panic and give up too much for Moustakas. Although, if he were to go to the Red Sox, that wouldn't necessarily be a rental. Since you know they're gonna go after him hard in the offseason wherever he finishes 2017.
Darren O'Day and/or Brad Brach, Orioles: Baltimore's got an abundance of relievers, and I can see the Orioles unloading at least one of them at the deadline. Cleveland's trade for and brilliant use of Andrew Miller was one of the primary reasons why they got to extra innings of Game 7 of the World Series last year. Can lightning strike twice with either Brach or O'Day?
Aaron Sanchez, Blue Jays: Out of all the Blue Jays starters, Sanchez seems like the most likely to be dealt (assuming they trade any of them at all). Yes, they'd probably get more for Marcus Stroman, but we all know how much the Blue Jays love their wannabe shortstop, so that's probably not happening. Sanchez, who's a free agent after the season and making only half a million though...that's a different story. He's the one you can easily see heading to Houston.
Melky Cabrera, White Sox: Believe it or not, the White Sox still have some players left on the roster! It might not be for long, though, since Melky Cabrera might be the next one to move. Especially since he's a proven postseason contributor. And a switch hitter. A team like Washington could certainly use him.
I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of wheeling and dealing going on over the next two weeks. Last year, we saw the Cubs and Indians both get to the World Series on the strength of their deadline moves (with a little help from the Yankees). Can somebody do the same this year? It's gonna be really interesting to see.
Monday, July 17, 2017
Opening Weekend for the Olympic Channel
In news that will shock no one who reads this next sentence, I was very excited for the launch of the Olympic Channel over the weekend. In fact, I actually called my cable company during the week to make sure that I got it (I do). And, despite some initial glitches (it was just a black screen for the first few hours), I'm impressed by what I've seen so far.
This isn't the first time the USOC has attempted to launch an Olympic Channel. Comcast and the USOC were ready to launch way back in 2009, but they met a ton of resistance from the IOC. That's putting it mildly. The IOC was not happy at all, and a lot of people think that was one of the things that led to Chicago's embarrassing first-round defeat in the race for the 2016 Games (which obviously went to Rio).
So what's the difference now? The IOC is on board. They have their own Olympic Channel, and they actually encouraged NBC to launch an American version. Branded as "The Home of Team USA," the Olympic Channel promises to show a number of sports that you ordinarily wouldn't see on TV outside of the Olympics. (The fact that NBC already had the rights to many of these events certainly helped.)
For example, if you had told me that I'd be sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon watching men's synchronized diving just because I could, my reaction would've been "Yeah, right." But there I was on Saturday, watching the men's synchronized springboard at the World Championships. There's been a steady helping of the Aquatics World Championships on the Olympic Channel over the network's first few days. They've shown diving, water polo and synchronized swimming, and they'll have the morning prelims when swimming starts over the weekend.
The swimming finals will be on NBC and NBCSN, which was a point NBC Olympic executives were sure to make. The major events that you would expect to see on regular TV still will be. That means your World Championships in swimming and track & field. What we're seeing on the Olympic Channel is the niche stuff that the casual fan won't make it a point to watch. Case in point, they showed a preliminary round water polo game between Greece and Spain this afternoon. When would you have seen any preliminary round game, even one involving the U.S., at the water polo World Championships before the Olympic Channel came around?
It wasn't just the water sports, though. They've been showing the Paralympic track & field World Championships, and I've watched two U.S. women's volleyball matches. That Olympic Channel launch special has been on about half a dozen times a day, too (I give them credit for doing 24 hours without infomercials, though). I've also seen on the program guide for this weekend the World Games, which are the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. Did any of you even know that such a thing existed?
Yes, most of this stuff is content NBC acquired when Universal Sports went out of business. Since then, they had been showing most of it on the now-defunct Universal HD, which primarily showed reruns of broadcast shows and movies when it didn't randomly have the NBC Sports events. They never really fit there. But that's exactly the type of programming that the Olympic Channel was made for. And there are plenty of Olympic fans who will soak up the year-round content.
And some of that year-round content looks pretty intriguing. In addition to the sports coverage, they'll have Olympic documentaries, both from the IOC's vast library and ones that they've produced themselves. And, perhaps most excitingly, past Olympics. The 2008 Opening Ceremony is on sometime this week, and they're going to show all eight games from the Dream Team in late August. Who could possibly not be excited about that?
Although, their archived Olympic coverage is somewhat limited, which is the only "problem" I have with that. This isn't NBC's fault since they only own the rights to Games they've covered, but how cool would it be to see the Miracle on Ice or the 1984 LA Games? Likewise, one of their documentaries will be on the 20th anniversary of the Nagano hockey tournament, the first one featuring NHL players (irony of that is not lost, especially since NBC carries the NHL), but they can't show any of those actual games since the 1998 Olympics were on CBS.
How the Olympic Channel is going to be used during the Olympics themselves remains to be seen. Again, they stressed that the whole point is to promote Team USA between Olympics. Although, with the PyeongChang Winter Games coming up in February, we'll find out soon. My guess is that it'll either be some type of overflow channel for hockey (think the soccer/basketball subchannels last year in Rio) or they'll have studio analysis.
What I am sure about is that they won't show live event coverage on the Olympic Channel (unless they do use it as an overflow hockey channel). Not with the amount of money NBC spends to be the Olympic rights holder.
However they decide to utilize the Olympic Channel in PyeongChang and Tokyo and beyond really doesn't matter. That's not the point of the channel. The point of the channel is to keep Team USA relevant beyond those two weeks every other year. And so far, it's working. It's only been three days, but so far, so good.
This isn't the first time the USOC has attempted to launch an Olympic Channel. Comcast and the USOC were ready to launch way back in 2009, but they met a ton of resistance from the IOC. That's putting it mildly. The IOC was not happy at all, and a lot of people think that was one of the things that led to Chicago's embarrassing first-round defeat in the race for the 2016 Games (which obviously went to Rio).
So what's the difference now? The IOC is on board. They have their own Olympic Channel, and they actually encouraged NBC to launch an American version. Branded as "The Home of Team USA," the Olympic Channel promises to show a number of sports that you ordinarily wouldn't see on TV outside of the Olympics. (The fact that NBC already had the rights to many of these events certainly helped.)
For example, if you had told me that I'd be sitting at home on a Saturday afternoon watching men's synchronized diving just because I could, my reaction would've been "Yeah, right." But there I was on Saturday, watching the men's synchronized springboard at the World Championships. There's been a steady helping of the Aquatics World Championships on the Olympic Channel over the network's first few days. They've shown diving, water polo and synchronized swimming, and they'll have the morning prelims when swimming starts over the weekend.
The swimming finals will be on NBC and NBCSN, which was a point NBC Olympic executives were sure to make. The major events that you would expect to see on regular TV still will be. That means your World Championships in swimming and track & field. What we're seeing on the Olympic Channel is the niche stuff that the casual fan won't make it a point to watch. Case in point, they showed a preliminary round water polo game between Greece and Spain this afternoon. When would you have seen any preliminary round game, even one involving the U.S., at the water polo World Championships before the Olympic Channel came around?
It wasn't just the water sports, though. They've been showing the Paralympic track & field World Championships, and I've watched two U.S. women's volleyball matches. That Olympic Channel launch special has been on about half a dozen times a day, too (I give them credit for doing 24 hours without infomercials, though). I've also seen on the program guide for this weekend the World Games, which are the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. Did any of you even know that such a thing existed?
Yes, most of this stuff is content NBC acquired when Universal Sports went out of business. Since then, they had been showing most of it on the now-defunct Universal HD, which primarily showed reruns of broadcast shows and movies when it didn't randomly have the NBC Sports events. They never really fit there. But that's exactly the type of programming that the Olympic Channel was made for. And there are plenty of Olympic fans who will soak up the year-round content.
And some of that year-round content looks pretty intriguing. In addition to the sports coverage, they'll have Olympic documentaries, both from the IOC's vast library and ones that they've produced themselves. And, perhaps most excitingly, past Olympics. The 2008 Opening Ceremony is on sometime this week, and they're going to show all eight games from the Dream Team in late August. Who could possibly not be excited about that?
Although, their archived Olympic coverage is somewhat limited, which is the only "problem" I have with that. This isn't NBC's fault since they only own the rights to Games they've covered, but how cool would it be to see the Miracle on Ice or the 1984 LA Games? Likewise, one of their documentaries will be on the 20th anniversary of the Nagano hockey tournament, the first one featuring NHL players (irony of that is not lost, especially since NBC carries the NHL), but they can't show any of those actual games since the 1998 Olympics were on CBS.
How the Olympic Channel is going to be used during the Olympics themselves remains to be seen. Again, they stressed that the whole point is to promote Team USA between Olympics. Although, with the PyeongChang Winter Games coming up in February, we'll find out soon. My guess is that it'll either be some type of overflow channel for hockey (think the soccer/basketball subchannels last year in Rio) or they'll have studio analysis.
What I am sure about is that they won't show live event coverage on the Olympic Channel (unless they do use it as an overflow hockey channel). Not with the amount of money NBC spends to be the Olympic rights holder.
However they decide to utilize the Olympic Channel in PyeongChang and Tokyo and beyond really doesn't matter. That's not the point of the channel. The point of the channel is to keep Team USA relevant beyond those two weeks every other year. And so far, it's working. It's only been three days, but so far, so good.
Sunday, July 16, 2017
Time to Combine Copas
Last year, we saw an incredible soccer tournament, as the best teams across the Americas met in the Copa America Centenario. It got so many people (me being one of them) thinking how great it would be if the combined tournament became a permanent arrangement. And now I'm seeing that they're planning on expanding both tournaments. That's even more reason to just combine them.
The Copa America Centenario featured 16 teams--all 10 from CONMEBOL and six from CONCACAF. Largely because of the success of that tournament, CONMEBOL announced in April that it would make the 16-team field permanent, starting with the 2019 edition in Brazil. Which means that instead of inviting just one additional team other than Mexico (which participates in every Copa America), now they have to add six.
It's likely that the United States will also snag an invitation to the 2019 Copa America. But the other four invitations will apparently go to European powerhouses, although Japan and Australia have also been mentioned. In any event, Portugal would likely be included, pretty much for the sole reason of having Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi and Neymar in the same tournament. (They already have that tournament. It's called the World Cup.)
Except here's the kicker (and the obvious flaw with this plan), they'd only be able to do it in 2019! FIFA wants Copa America to be in the same year as the Euro, so CONMEBOL also agreed to that change. Starting in 2020, Copa America will be moved to the even year and played in the same year as the Euros. So, if the tournaments are in the same year, they obviously won't be able to involve European teams (who, by the way, have no business playing for the championship of the Americas in the first place!).
Of course, the fact that there's only 10 teams in CONMEBOL has always made the Copa America somewhat awkward anyway. And it's why the idea of combining the Gold Cup and Copa America into one makes so much sense. Especially with the cycle changing from odd years to the non-World Cup even year.
I'm not opposed to the idea of the CONCACAF Gold Cup. In fact, I think it should be used as a qualifying tournament. The eight teams that make the quarterfinals of the Gold Cup qualify for Copa America. The South American teams, meanwhile, actually have to qualify, since only eight of the 10 would be in the final tournament.
This suggestion isn't that extreme. It's essentially the same thing they did for the Copa America Centenario, which everyone agrees was tremendous on a number of levels. That's why the talk of a combined event started in the first place. And it makes sense, too. Because, let's face it, the quality of play in the Gold Cup is not a very high level. Which is part of the reason the Copa America Centenario was so great. The competition was simply better.
And if we thought the 12-team Gold Cup was bad, get ready for it to get even worse. Because the Gold Cup is also expanding. Starting in 2019, the Gold Cup will feature 16 teams instead of 12. Why? I don't know. No offense to them, but we don't need four more Martiniques and French Guianas further watering down the tournament (also, how did Trinidad & Tobago not qualify?).
World Cup qualifying in CONCACAF is a joke until you get to the Hex, mainly because these are the teams that the United States and Mexico and Costa Rica have to play. Sure, expanding the field from 12 to 16 gives those lower-level teams more of a chance to qualify for the main event, but as we see in the Confederations Cup, their chances of being competitive are still pretty slim. And that doesn't help anybody.
What the United States and Mexico need is to play more games against better teams. And that's not gonna happen by expanding the Gold Cup. Because, as we've seen with the incredibly flawed yet still used religiously FIFA rankings, you don't get any credit for beating CONCACAF opponents (even though you have to, seeing as you're in the same region). For their rankings to go up (and, frankly, to have a better shot at the World Cup), they need to play Colombia and Uruguay, not El Salvador and Jamaica.
Can the Gold Cup and the expanded Copa America coexist? Yes. But, if the Copa America is going to expand, it needs to become a true regional championship. Then it'll really mean something if the U.S. or Mexico wins it. And, on the flip side, I think South Americas would be able to stomach that more than seeing a European team win the Copa America.
After all, the Americas are combined in every other sport, and the Pan Am Games. Why not soccer, too? Make the Copa America the championship for all of the Americas.
Friday, July 14, 2017
Contender Needs
With the second half of the baseball season about to get underway, teams have just a couple of weeks to decide whether they're going to be buyers or sellers at the trade deadline. We already know some contenders (Dodgers, Nationals, Astros) that will definitely be in the market for the pieces that can propel them to a World Series run. We also know the teams that are out of it (White Sox, Padres, Phillies) and will be providing those pieces. Then there are teams like the Cubs, Toronto and Kansas City that have two weeks to figure it out.
Rays: A Left-Handed Starter--I'll be honest. I have no idea how the Rays are this good. You haven't heard of half their roster, and half the guys you have heard of are on the DL. I'm not sure Tampa Bay can sustain it in the second half, or that they'll have the players/resources to be buyers. But assuming they are, you'd have to think they'd like to add another starter. Preferably a lefty, seeing as their top three (Chris Archer, Jake Odorizzi, Alex Cobb) are all right-handed. What lefty starters will be available and in Tampa Bay's price range remain to be seen.
Things have already started in jest, with the Cubs making the first move and getting Carlos Quintana, who was going to be the most sought-after starting pitcher out there (as a bonus, he doesn't even have to move!). We also saw a Yankees-Brewers trade where both teams added something they badly needed. Those were the first of what I think will be many trades.
Because there isn't a team out there that doesn't need improvement. Even the Dodgers and Astros, who both seem untouchable, have flaws. And if the other playoff contenders want to catch them, they really need to work on theirs. Here's what I think each of the 10 teams currently in playoff position needs to consider the most as we begin the second half.
Astros: Another Starter--On paper, Houston doesn't need to do much. Offensively, they're stacked. And they play all 12 guys on their roster, so it's not even like their bench needs any help. They've got a really strong bullpen, too. Which leaves the starting rotation. That's really the only area where I see the Astros (who will be prohibitive favorites in the American League) as vulnerable. Now, Dallas Keuchel and Collin McHugh are both on the DL and expected back, so that might be the answer right there. But I wouldn't be surprised to see them get another starter just for insurance.
Red Sox: Third Base--Third base has been a position where the Red Sox have been seeking an upgrade for about two years. Early speculation had them tied to Mike Moustakas, but with Kansas City back in the AL Central race, I'm not sure Moustakas will be on the move. They're definitely going to look for a third baseman somewhere, though. And if Moustakas is out of the picture, I can easily see them going back to their old friends the White Sox and making a run at Todd Frazier.
Indians: Bench Depth--Cleveland made the World Series last year and in many ways is better this season. The Indians made it through the playoffs with only three starters and creative bullpen usage last year, so I think they're actually in OK shape pitching-wise. But they're one position player injury away from being completely screwed. Jason Kipnis and Lonnie Chisenhall are already out, and they simply don't have that much depth. They might want to look into strengthening that bench just in case.
Yankees: First Base and the Bullpen--The trade with Milwaukee was just a start. You know there will be more moves. The Yankees have a bunch of flaws. The most glaring ones are first base and the bullpen. Some would say a starter, and the rotation has been hit-or-miss, but it's nowhere near as big of a problem as the bullpen. There aren't many arms Joe Girardi can trust out there. And Tyler Clippard should be pitching for the Tampa Yankees, not the New York Yankees. The first base thing, meanwhile, will be decided one way or another at the deadline. They're waiting to see what's going on with Greg Bird. But either way, there will almost certainly be yet another first baseman wearing pinstripes by the end of this month.
Rays: A Left-Handed Starter--I'll be honest. I have no idea how the Rays are this good. You haven't heard of half their roster, and half the guys you have heard of are on the DL. I'm not sure Tampa Bay can sustain it in the second half, or that they'll have the players/resources to be buyers. But assuming they are, you'd have to think they'd like to add another starter. Preferably a lefty, seeing as their top three (Chris Archer, Jake Odorizzi, Alex Cobb) are all right-handed. What lefty starters will be available and in Tampa Bay's price range remain to be seen.
Dodgers: A Right-Handed Bat--If they could clone Clayton Kershaw, they would. And, like everybody else, they could use some bullpen help. But the Dodgers' biggest area of concern in October is their lack of a right-handed bat. To say their lineup is lefty-heavy would be an understatement. Assuming Cody Bellinger moves to the outfield when Adrian Gonzalez comes back, five of their eight starters are left-handed (and Yasmani Grandal is a switch hitter). The only Dodger regulars that are right-handed are Justin Turner and Yasiel Puig. That imbalance makes them incredibly vulnerable against left-handed pitching and needs to be evened out. The Dodgers are reportedly in the market for pitching. But they should be looking for a right-handed bat, too.
Nationals: A Closer--It's the same old story in Washington. This team has the potential to make a deep postseason run. But their Achilles' heel, which is always exposed in October, is that shaky bullpen. That's why they're linked to every good relief pitcher out there. David Robertson. Zach Britton. Justin Wilson. Sean Doolittle. They'd be wise to go after a set up guy like Brad Brach or Pat Neshek or Brad Hand or Steve Cishek, too.
Brewers: Left-Handed Pitching--Whether the Cubs make a run at them in the NL Central or not, the Brewers should be thinking about October. And they're not gonna win in the postseason without left-handed pitching. That's why it was really smart of them to get Tyler Webb, who gives them another lefty in the bullpen alongside Josh Hader. But Brent Suter is their only left-handed starter, and those heavily left-handed lineups in LA and Washington eat up right-handed pitching.
Diamondbacks: A Corner Outfielder--Catching the Dodgers doesn't seem likely, and they've got Zack Greinke to pitch the Wild Card Game, so they're in decent shape there, too. And, just like every team, they could use bullpen help. But Arizona will almost certainly be in the market for another bat at the deadline. And I think that bat will be a power-hitting corner outfielder they can plug behind Goldschmidt and Lamb. Somebody like the Tigers' J.D. Martinez or, perhaps even more likely since it seems like such a perfect fit, the Mets' Jay Bruce.
Rockies: Pitching--As usual, and to the surprise of no one, Colorado's biggest trade deadline priority is pitching. The separation in the National League is such that it would be an incredible surprise to not see a Diamondbacks-Rockies Wild Card Game. And unless Colorado gets a starter better than Jon Gray to go against Greinke, their first trip to the playoffs in 10 years will be a one-game appearance. That's not to say they don't need bullpen help, too. They've got a solid closer in Greg Holland, but they'll be looking for setup guys all over the place.
Of course, there are teams currently on the outside looking in who will also be buyers at the deadline. In fact, I think we might see more trades like the one between the Yankees and Brewers. Two contenders helping each other out. Because I'm not sure how many teams, especially in the American League, will really consider themselves out of it enough to be sellers. If teams like the Blue Jays or Rangers do become sellers, though, that could be the difference between a pennant and a Division Series exit for whoever snags those guys first.
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
The 2024-2028 Combo
To the surprise of no one, the IOC unanimously approved the proposal to award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympics to Paris and Los Angeles at the IOC Session in September. Now the three parties will work on an agreement as to who goes first, although the consensus on that has long been that Paris will get 2024, while LA will wait until 2028. If there's no agreement in place by the IOC Session, the membership will only vote for the 2024 host. Don't expect that to happen.
We've all known for quite some time that they were going to move ahead with the dual awarding. That was the clear preference of IOC President Thomas Bach, so he was going to make sure of it. And it makes sense on a lot of levels.
After the debacle of the 2022 race, as well as seeing four cities drop out of the running for 2024, leaving just LA and Paris, the dual award seemed inevitable. And not just because, as Bach said, the old process "produces too many losers." It's also about much more than the rhetoric the IOC was spewing about having two "first-rate" bids. There was definite fear that the loser wouldn't want to come back for 2028, and the IOC wanted to make sure that wouldn't be the case.
Paris has bid for the Olympics and lost three times in the past 30 years. They were considered the favorites in the stacked 2012 race, which was ultimately won by London. How many times can you reject a city and expect them to keep coming back? Especially a city as spectacular as Paris. Now, full disclosure, if they didn't come to this arrangement and it was a straightforward head-to-head vote, Paris would likely win. But it was definitely wise not to run that risk.
Likewise, the U.S. has seen New York and Chicago both suffer embarrassing defeats in recent bid cycles. Then there was the even more embarrassing selection of Boston for the 2024 bid, only to have them say no before LA, which probably should've been the choice in the first place, step in as a replacement. Boston would've had no shot of winning internationally. LA is probably the U.S.'s best option as an Olympic host.
But an LA loss would've meant that the three largest cities in the most important nation to the Olympic movement were all rejected in a 12-year span. And it almost certainly would've guaranteed that a Summer Olympics on American soil wasn't going to happen anytime soon. The IOC didn't want that, either. Not with the amount of money NBC and a whole bunch of American-based sponsors have invested in the Olympics. Not to mention how much it would've alienated the USOC, wasting all that effort that went into repairing the relationship.
So, as much as this is about making sure two excellent bids are rewarded, there are also some obvious political reasons for the dual awarding. They knew that they couldn't lose either one as a bidder for 2028, especially with the disaster that has been the last two bid cycles. That's where the mutual benefit comes in. Everybody gets an Olympics, and the IOC doesn't have to worry about having to settle for the best available option four years from now. Now they have plenty of time to figure out a new system that works before the next Summer vote, which is now pushed back until 2025.
That vote won't take place until a year after the Paris Games. There are a lot of reasons why Paris will likely go first, and, frankly, it should. For one, the IOC needs a willing host in Western Europe. It's been Western democracies that have been saying a resounding "No" to the Olympics over the past two bid cycles. Western Europe is very important to the Olympic Movement. They need the countries in Western Europe to actually be involved. Hopefully a successful, on-budget Paris Games will stop scaring them off.
I can go into all the technical specifics about the two bids, too, but it also seems to make sense financially to go with the plan that doesn't require any building later. That may sound counterintuitive, but it really isn't. Because who's to say the money (and land) earmarked for those projects would still be available four years later? (That's a big issue with their proposed Olympic Village, which is part of the reason why Paris insists it has to go first.) LA wants to use already-existing permanent facilities. If they'll already be there in 2024, they'll still be there in 2028.
One of the points the IOC has made repeatedly throughout this process is that these are both tremendous cities capable of hosting an outstanding Olympic Games. They've both hosted twice previously. Now they're poised to become the second and third three-time hosts. And I'm sure both Games will indeed be outstanding, whichever order they're in.
Although, if you're planning on going to the 2024 Olympics, you'd better get your Passport ready. Because the order will almost certainly be Paris-LA.
We've all known for quite some time that they were going to move ahead with the dual awarding. That was the clear preference of IOC President Thomas Bach, so he was going to make sure of it. And it makes sense on a lot of levels.
After the debacle of the 2022 race, as well as seeing four cities drop out of the running for 2024, leaving just LA and Paris, the dual award seemed inevitable. And not just because, as Bach said, the old process "produces too many losers." It's also about much more than the rhetoric the IOC was spewing about having two "first-rate" bids. There was definite fear that the loser wouldn't want to come back for 2028, and the IOC wanted to make sure that wouldn't be the case.
Paris has bid for the Olympics and lost three times in the past 30 years. They were considered the favorites in the stacked 2012 race, which was ultimately won by London. How many times can you reject a city and expect them to keep coming back? Especially a city as spectacular as Paris. Now, full disclosure, if they didn't come to this arrangement and it was a straightforward head-to-head vote, Paris would likely win. But it was definitely wise not to run that risk.
Likewise, the U.S. has seen New York and Chicago both suffer embarrassing defeats in recent bid cycles. Then there was the even more embarrassing selection of Boston for the 2024 bid, only to have them say no before LA, which probably should've been the choice in the first place, step in as a replacement. Boston would've had no shot of winning internationally. LA is probably the U.S.'s best option as an Olympic host.
But an LA loss would've meant that the three largest cities in the most important nation to the Olympic movement were all rejected in a 12-year span. And it almost certainly would've guaranteed that a Summer Olympics on American soil wasn't going to happen anytime soon. The IOC didn't want that, either. Not with the amount of money NBC and a whole bunch of American-based sponsors have invested in the Olympics. Not to mention how much it would've alienated the USOC, wasting all that effort that went into repairing the relationship.
So, as much as this is about making sure two excellent bids are rewarded, there are also some obvious political reasons for the dual awarding. They knew that they couldn't lose either one as a bidder for 2028, especially with the disaster that has been the last two bid cycles. That's where the mutual benefit comes in. Everybody gets an Olympics, and the IOC doesn't have to worry about having to settle for the best available option four years from now. Now they have plenty of time to figure out a new system that works before the next Summer vote, which is now pushed back until 2025.
That vote won't take place until a year after the Paris Games. There are a lot of reasons why Paris will likely go first, and, frankly, it should. For one, the IOC needs a willing host in Western Europe. It's been Western democracies that have been saying a resounding "No" to the Olympics over the past two bid cycles. Western Europe is very important to the Olympic Movement. They need the countries in Western Europe to actually be involved. Hopefully a successful, on-budget Paris Games will stop scaring them off.
I can go into all the technical specifics about the two bids, too, but it also seems to make sense financially to go with the plan that doesn't require any building later. That may sound counterintuitive, but it really isn't. Because who's to say the money (and land) earmarked for those projects would still be available four years later? (That's a big issue with their proposed Olympic Village, which is part of the reason why Paris insists it has to go first.) LA wants to use already-existing permanent facilities. If they'll already be there in 2024, they'll still be there in 2028.
One of the points the IOC has made repeatedly throughout this process is that these are both tremendous cities capable of hosting an outstanding Olympic Games. They've both hosted twice previously. Now they're poised to become the second and third three-time hosts. And I'm sure both Games will indeed be outstanding, whichever order they're in.
Although, if you're planning on going to the 2024 Olympics, you'd better get your Passport ready. Because the order will almost certainly be Paris-LA.
Saturday, July 8, 2017
2017 Midseason MLB Awards
We've reached the All*Star Break, which means the players not headed to Miami will get a couple days off before the season resumes on Friday. The All*Star Game marks at the traditional midway point of the season, even though everybody actually hits halfway a week earlier. So, we've had a little more than half a season to go on, which means it's a perfect time to hand out some awards.
AL Rookie: Aaron Judge, Yankees-I started with the easiest one. Judge is in a class by himself. He ranks so far above all other AL rookies that it's an insult to him (and them) to even pretend there are other "candidates." In fact...
AL MVP: Aaron Judge, Yankees-Judge isn't just the best rookie in the American League. He's the best player in the American League. And right now, he's the clear choice for MVP, too. Seriously, can you make a legitimate argument for anybody else? He's already broken the Yankees rookie record for home runs (for an entire season!) and is flirting with the Triple Crown. All this for a guy some thought might not even make the team at the start of Spring Training. If his second half is anything like his first, he'll join Fred Lynn and Ichiro as the only players to win Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season.
AL Cy Young: Chris Sale, Red Sox-If it's possible, changing his Sox made Chris Sale better. After escaping Chicago for the pressure cooker that is Boston, he's been the true ace the Red Sox haven't had since Jon Lester. He leads the AL in innings pitched, strikeouts, WHIP and opponents' batting average, and is second in both wins and ERA. Sale is your likely AL starter on Tuesday night. And he should be. Because he's clearly been the best pitcher in the American League over the first three months of the season.
AL Manager: Kevin Cash, Rays-There are a lot of managers that you could make the argument for. Everyone knew the Red Sox and Astros were gonna be good, so John Farrell and A.J. Hinch are out. But no one was expecting this from the Rays, which is why Kevin Cash gets the nod. Tampa Bay overhauled most of its roster, so most people thought the Rays would linger at or near the bottom of the AL East. Instead, they're right in the thick of the wild card race with a low-budget roster lacking in star power.
NL Rookie: Cody Bellinger, Dodgers-The Dodgers didn't have a great April. Then they promoted Cody Bellinger and took off. The batting average isn't there, but that's the only thing missing. Besides, his home runs, RBIs, runs and slugging percentage more than make up for it. It's not Judge-like, but the gap between Bellinger and the other NL rookies is almost as wide. And it sure looks like he's next in the long line of Dodgers to win Rookie of the Year.
NL MVP: Charlie Blackmon, Rockies-This is the tightest of all the award races right now. I was tempted to go with the Nationals' Ryan Zimmerman (who's the clear front runner for Comeback Player of the Year). But Charlie Blackmon's first half was simply amazing, and it's one of the biggest reasons why the Rockies are surprise contenders. Are some of his numbers Coors Field aided? Possibly. But regardless, he leads the NL in hits and triples, is second in runs, and ranks fifth in average. You can't argue against that.
NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers-Is it even fair to compare Clayton Kershaw with human pitchers? Because it really doesn't seem like it. Max Scherzer has actually given him a run for his money, but the Best Pitcher on Earth has once again put up otherworldly numbers for the team with the best record in the game. Scherzer's actually in front of Kershaw in a few of the counting categories, but Kershaw has a Major League-best 13 wins, and the Dodgers are 16-2 in his starts (including wins in his last 12). LA hasn't lost a game in which Kershaw has pitched since May 1. Washington's record behind Scherzer? 12-6. That's why I give Kershaw the midseason nod.
NL Manager: Craig Counsell, Brewers-After winning 103 games and the World Series last year, the Cubs were just gonna cruise to another NL Central title, right? Right? Apparently not. Because Craig Counsell has the Brewers in first place at the All*Star break. I've seen this team for the last two days, and I'm still not quite sure how they're doing it. But they are, and you've got to give them props for that. Because I bet every one of you would have trouble naming five players on Milwaukee's roster. Honorable mention to Torey Lovullo in Arizona and Bud Black in Colorado.
Lastly, we've got the Comeback Players of the Year. MLB is really pushing this one as the fifth major award in each league, but it hasn't quite gotten to that level, yet (there's no MLB Network special announcing the Comeback Players). I think there are two clear winners at midseason, though. Michael Brantley of the Indians and Ryan Zimmerman of the Nationals.
They're both All*Stars, and they both made already good teams better. Brantley played in just 11 games last season, when he had to watch Cleveland go to the World Series without him. This year, he's back to being the Indians' best player not named Lindor. Meanwhile, Zimmerman (who's had all kinds of injury problems of his own) has gone from a .218 hitter last season to an MVP candidate this year in Washington.
AL Rookie: Aaron Judge, Yankees-I started with the easiest one. Judge is in a class by himself. He ranks so far above all other AL rookies that it's an insult to him (and them) to even pretend there are other "candidates." In fact...
AL MVP: Aaron Judge, Yankees-Judge isn't just the best rookie in the American League. He's the best player in the American League. And right now, he's the clear choice for MVP, too. Seriously, can you make a legitimate argument for anybody else? He's already broken the Yankees rookie record for home runs (for an entire season!) and is flirting with the Triple Crown. All this for a guy some thought might not even make the team at the start of Spring Training. If his second half is anything like his first, he'll join Fred Lynn and Ichiro as the only players to win Rookie of the Year and MVP in the same season.
AL Cy Young: Chris Sale, Red Sox-If it's possible, changing his Sox made Chris Sale better. After escaping Chicago for the pressure cooker that is Boston, he's been the true ace the Red Sox haven't had since Jon Lester. He leads the AL in innings pitched, strikeouts, WHIP and opponents' batting average, and is second in both wins and ERA. Sale is your likely AL starter on Tuesday night. And he should be. Because he's clearly been the best pitcher in the American League over the first three months of the season.
AL Manager: Kevin Cash, Rays-There are a lot of managers that you could make the argument for. Everyone knew the Red Sox and Astros were gonna be good, so John Farrell and A.J. Hinch are out. But no one was expecting this from the Rays, which is why Kevin Cash gets the nod. Tampa Bay overhauled most of its roster, so most people thought the Rays would linger at or near the bottom of the AL East. Instead, they're right in the thick of the wild card race with a low-budget roster lacking in star power.
NL Rookie: Cody Bellinger, Dodgers-The Dodgers didn't have a great April. Then they promoted Cody Bellinger and took off. The batting average isn't there, but that's the only thing missing. Besides, his home runs, RBIs, runs and slugging percentage more than make up for it. It's not Judge-like, but the gap between Bellinger and the other NL rookies is almost as wide. And it sure looks like he's next in the long line of Dodgers to win Rookie of the Year.
NL MVP: Charlie Blackmon, Rockies-This is the tightest of all the award races right now. I was tempted to go with the Nationals' Ryan Zimmerman (who's the clear front runner for Comeback Player of the Year). But Charlie Blackmon's first half was simply amazing, and it's one of the biggest reasons why the Rockies are surprise contenders. Are some of his numbers Coors Field aided? Possibly. But regardless, he leads the NL in hits and triples, is second in runs, and ranks fifth in average. You can't argue against that.
NL Cy Young: Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers-Is it even fair to compare Clayton Kershaw with human pitchers? Because it really doesn't seem like it. Max Scherzer has actually given him a run for his money, but the Best Pitcher on Earth has once again put up otherworldly numbers for the team with the best record in the game. Scherzer's actually in front of Kershaw in a few of the counting categories, but Kershaw has a Major League-best 13 wins, and the Dodgers are 16-2 in his starts (including wins in his last 12). LA hasn't lost a game in which Kershaw has pitched since May 1. Washington's record behind Scherzer? 12-6. That's why I give Kershaw the midseason nod.
NL Manager: Craig Counsell, Brewers-After winning 103 games and the World Series last year, the Cubs were just gonna cruise to another NL Central title, right? Right? Apparently not. Because Craig Counsell has the Brewers in first place at the All*Star break. I've seen this team for the last two days, and I'm still not quite sure how they're doing it. But they are, and you've got to give them props for that. Because I bet every one of you would have trouble naming five players on Milwaukee's roster. Honorable mention to Torey Lovullo in Arizona and Bud Black in Colorado.
Lastly, we've got the Comeback Players of the Year. MLB is really pushing this one as the fifth major award in each league, but it hasn't quite gotten to that level, yet (there's no MLB Network special announcing the Comeback Players). I think there are two clear winners at midseason, though. Michael Brantley of the Indians and Ryan Zimmerman of the Nationals.
They're both All*Stars, and they both made already good teams better. Brantley played in just 11 games last season, when he had to watch Cleveland go to the World Series without him. This year, he's back to being the Indians' best player not named Lindor. Meanwhile, Zimmerman (who's had all kinds of injury problems of his own) has gone from a .218 hitter last season to an MVP candidate this year in Washington.
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
An All-Star Whiner
Logan Morrison really wanted to be in the Home Run Derby. He tried to play it off, saying "I'm not disappointed," but that has to be the reason he lashed out at Gary Sanchez yesterday. A move that completely backfired. Because all it did was make Morrison look like a cry baby. He didn't get picked, so he whined about it, and he took it out on Sanchez.
In case you missed it, Morrison, whose 24 home runs are second-most in the Majors, took issue with the fact that Sanchez, who has 14 home runs this season, was invited to participate and he wasn't. The fact that Sanchez missed pretty much all of April was apparently irrelevant to him, as was the fact that Sanchez took the Majors by storm with his home run barrage in the second half of last season. All he saw was the 14 and he used that as his reason why Sanchez shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby.
Morrison's exact quote in the Tampa Bay Times was "Gary shouldn't be there. Gary's a great player, but he shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby." And, still hung up on the 14 homer thing, he added, "I remember when I had 14 home runs. That was a month and a half ago."
While he didn't say that he thought he should be there instead, that's clearly what Morrison was implying. Apparently he thinks they made a new rule that nobody else knows about where the top four guys in home runs in each league at the All*Star Break are the four that get to do the Home Run Derby. That's a nice idea in theory, but no such rule exists.
Not surprisingly, Morrison's sour grapes drew quite the reaction. And likely as a result, he tried to backtrack, but his "explanation" didn't really help his case. Morrison was, of course, asked about it prior to the Rays' game against the Cubs and he said his comments weren't about Sanchez specifically (even though he was the only person he named). His problem is apparently with the system. He's upset that the Brewers' Eric Thames (who hit about 30 home runs in April and has done nothing since) wasn't selected, either. Morrison didn't say why he thinks the system is flawed. Just that he thinks it is.
To his credit, Gary Sanchez took the high road in his response to Morrison. Sanchez was asked about it before Wednesday's Yankees-Blue Jays game and all he said was, "It's not my fault he didn't get selected. What can I say? They gave me a call, gave me an invitation to participate." (And any suggestion that Sanchez was only invited to insure Aaron Judge would take part is completely ridiculous.)
The only stipulation Sanchez had was that he wouldn't do it if he didn't make the All*Star team. Once he was selected to the AL squad, he agreed to do the Derby. And it's here where I feel the need to mention that other major difference between Gary Sanchez and Logan Morrison. Gary Sanchez is on the AL All*Star team. Logan Morrison likely won't be. He's on the ballot for the Final Vote, but is in fifth place.
Mike Moustakas is the current Final Vote leader, as well as one of the other AL participants, so if he's caught in the voting we'll have a second non-All*Star in the Home Run Derby. I say a second because Justin Bour, who was likely only selected for the Home Run Derby because he plays for the hometown Marlins, is almost certainly not going to win the National League Final Vote (like Morrison, he's in fifth place). So, if there's anybody who shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby, it's not Gary Sanchez. It's Justin Bour.
I do agree with Morrison in one respect. The Home Run Derby should be limited to members of the two All*Star teams. There are 20 All*Star position players in each league. You're telling me you can't find four in each who'd be willing to do the Home Run Derby? The only exceptions I'd be willing to make would be if the defending champion or the top slugger on the home team isn't an All*Star. Otherwise, you've got enough All*Stars to choose from that you don't need to be bringing guys in just for the Home Run Derby.
They used to pick the Home Run Derby participants only from the All*Stars, but that started to change once they did that stupid thing with team captains a couple years ago. Since then we've had Yoenis Cespedes win the Home Run Derby despite not being on the All*Star team, and Giancarlo Stanton wasn't an All*Star last year when he won in San Diego (which he said is the primary reason he won).
And, no offense to Gary Sanchez or Mike Moustakas or any of the other participants, the reality is that six of the eight guys in this year's Home Run Derby didn't matter. Because who doesn't want to see Giancarlo Stanton and Aaron Judge go head-to-head in the finals? People weren't going to tune in to see Logan Morrison in the first round. They want to see Stanton vs. Judge. And, I hate to break it to you Logan, but people want to see Gary Sanchez more than you, too.
In case you missed it, Morrison, whose 24 home runs are second-most in the Majors, took issue with the fact that Sanchez, who has 14 home runs this season, was invited to participate and he wasn't. The fact that Sanchez missed pretty much all of April was apparently irrelevant to him, as was the fact that Sanchez took the Majors by storm with his home run barrage in the second half of last season. All he saw was the 14 and he used that as his reason why Sanchez shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby.
Morrison's exact quote in the Tampa Bay Times was "Gary shouldn't be there. Gary's a great player, but he shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby." And, still hung up on the 14 homer thing, he added, "I remember when I had 14 home runs. That was a month and a half ago."
While he didn't say that he thought he should be there instead, that's clearly what Morrison was implying. Apparently he thinks they made a new rule that nobody else knows about where the top four guys in home runs in each league at the All*Star Break are the four that get to do the Home Run Derby. That's a nice idea in theory, but no such rule exists.
Not surprisingly, Morrison's sour grapes drew quite the reaction. And likely as a result, he tried to backtrack, but his "explanation" didn't really help his case. Morrison was, of course, asked about it prior to the Rays' game against the Cubs and he said his comments weren't about Sanchez specifically (even though he was the only person he named). His problem is apparently with the system. He's upset that the Brewers' Eric Thames (who hit about 30 home runs in April and has done nothing since) wasn't selected, either. Morrison didn't say why he thinks the system is flawed. Just that he thinks it is.
To his credit, Gary Sanchez took the high road in his response to Morrison. Sanchez was asked about it before Wednesday's Yankees-Blue Jays game and all he said was, "It's not my fault he didn't get selected. What can I say? They gave me a call, gave me an invitation to participate." (And any suggestion that Sanchez was only invited to insure Aaron Judge would take part is completely ridiculous.)
The only stipulation Sanchez had was that he wouldn't do it if he didn't make the All*Star team. Once he was selected to the AL squad, he agreed to do the Derby. And it's here where I feel the need to mention that other major difference between Gary Sanchez and Logan Morrison. Gary Sanchez is on the AL All*Star team. Logan Morrison likely won't be. He's on the ballot for the Final Vote, but is in fifth place.
Mike Moustakas is the current Final Vote leader, as well as one of the other AL participants, so if he's caught in the voting we'll have a second non-All*Star in the Home Run Derby. I say a second because Justin Bour, who was likely only selected for the Home Run Derby because he plays for the hometown Marlins, is almost certainly not going to win the National League Final Vote (like Morrison, he's in fifth place). So, if there's anybody who shouldn't be in the Home Run Derby, it's not Gary Sanchez. It's Justin Bour.
I do agree with Morrison in one respect. The Home Run Derby should be limited to members of the two All*Star teams. There are 20 All*Star position players in each league. You're telling me you can't find four in each who'd be willing to do the Home Run Derby? The only exceptions I'd be willing to make would be if the defending champion or the top slugger on the home team isn't an All*Star. Otherwise, you've got enough All*Stars to choose from that you don't need to be bringing guys in just for the Home Run Derby.
They used to pick the Home Run Derby participants only from the All*Stars, but that started to change once they did that stupid thing with team captains a couple years ago. Since then we've had Yoenis Cespedes win the Home Run Derby despite not being on the All*Star team, and Giancarlo Stanton wasn't an All*Star last year when he won in San Diego (which he said is the primary reason he won).
And, no offense to Gary Sanchez or Mike Moustakas or any of the other participants, the reality is that six of the eight guys in this year's Home Run Derby didn't matter. Because who doesn't want to see Giancarlo Stanton and Aaron Judge go head-to-head in the finals? People weren't going to tune in to see Logan Morrison in the first round. They want to see Stanton vs. Judge. And, I hate to break it to you Logan, but people want to see Gary Sanchez more than you, too.
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Ready For Wimbledon
They moved the start of Wimbledon back a week this year, which was very confusing last weekend when I was looking for the draw. I'm assuming that's a permanent change. So instead of being the last week in June and first week in July, the tournament is now the first two weeks in July, meaning there's the potential of a whole bunch of Americans playing on the 4th every year.
This Wimbledon is shaping up to be a great one, too. That's because, for the first time since 2014, the Big Four are the top four seeds in the men's tournament. Murray's No. 1 and the defending champion, Nadal has been arguably the best player on tour this year, and a resurgent Roger skipped the French so he could prepare for this tournament. As odd as it is to say, Djokovic is the one who's struggling. After his early loss at the French, he was contemplating taking some time off, which I think he will after Wimbledon.
And of the four, Djokovic does seem the most vulnerable. He doesn't have an easy draw, starting with Juan Martin Del Potro, who's always a threat as long as he's healthy. Then there's Tomas Berdych, one of two active players outside the Big Four who's actually been to a Wimbledon final, lying in wait for the winner of that one in the quarters.
Which isn't to say the others have it easy. For Roger to hoist his record eighth Wimbledon trophy, he'll likely have to beat the guy who beat him in last year's semis--Milos Raonic. But that's exactly why Federer sat out the French Open. He might've won this year's Australian Open, but he knows that this is still his best tournament. And if vintage Roger shows up, it's not hard to picture him winning the title for the first time in five years.
In fact, I've got to say Federer is my slight favorite on the men's side. He wanted to make sure he was healthy for the grass court season, which he is. As evidence by his easy title in Halle. The other three, meanwhile, all have questions. With Djokovic it's mental. Murray's health is a concern. And will Nadal's body hold up to play seven best-of-five matches less than a month after winning his 10th French Open?
It's been 15 years since Lleyton Hewitt won the title. He's the last person outside of the Big Four to do so. In fact, of the 28 Wimbledon finalists since then, 25 of them have been either the Big Four or Andy Roddick. Don't expect that to change this year. They've dominated tennis for the last decade and a half for a reason. I'm gonna say Federer over Murray in the final, but another Roger-Rafa classic doesn't seem out of the question at all.
On the women's side, I think we're in for a tournament as unpredictable as the French Open was, although the likelihood of the out-of-nowhere champion is probably less likely. Although, we probably will see a first-time Wimbledon champion. That's because the only former winners in the field are Venus Williams and Petra Kvitova, who are on the same side of the bracket and would potentially meet in a semifinal. Unlike the men, though, there are a number of women who've lost the Wimbledon final in recent years and could conceivably get back there.
The No. 1 ranking is also at stake. Current No. 1 Angelique Kerber lost to Serena in the final last year and I think is in the best position to get back, her first-round loss at the French notwithstanding. If Kerber doesn't get back to the final, she'll lose the No. 1 ranking. No. 2 Simona Halep can snag it, but she'll have to get to the semis, which I think might be a tall order. Otherwise, the No. 1 ranking goes to Karolina Pliskova, who doesn't seem like much of a threat to win the title.
So who are threats to win the women's title? Well, there's Kerber. And Kvitova. And Venus. But I also like Caroline Wozniacki's chances. Woz has been playing great all year and was one of the few top players who actually had a good French Open. She still has that stigma of never having won a Slam (or even reaching a final somewhere other than the US Open), but I really think that could change this year.
Then there's No. 6 Johanna Konta, the highest-seeded British woman since Virginia Wade in 1977. That just happens to be the year Wade won her only Wimbledon title, which is still the last for a British woman (they really haven't even been close since then). Can Konta make some history of her own 40 years later? Or will the pressure get to her? Don't forget, she'd never won a Wimbledon match before last year, and the only Grand Slam where she's made a deep run is the Australian Open. I'm not saying she won't do it. But the Brits shouldn't expect to see one of their own winning the women's title just yet.
Besides, Konta's on the Kvitova/Venus side of the bracket, along with Halep. There are also two unseeded women who have potential to make some serious noise on the bottom half of the draw. One is Eugenie Bouchard, the 2014 runner-up who's really struggled since then. The other is Victoria Azarenka. This is Vika's first Grand Slam since giving birth, and I'm curious to see what her fitness level is at. She's probably not in a position to win, but she could definitely give some players headaches.
Some experts have predicted that this could be a breakout tournament for the American women, and I can see why. It's not just Venus Williams. There's also Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe and Bethanie Mattek-Sands to name just a few. Obviously Wimbledon has been Serena's domain for a while, but there's definitely cause to be excited about the American chances even with her out. However, while I think one or more of them could go on a deep run, I doubt it will end with a title.
Instead, I've gotta like Kerber, last year's finalist, and Kvitova, the two-time champion. I see them defeating Wozniacki and Venus Williams to get to the final, where Kerber wins her third Grand Slam title and first Wimbledon to hold on to her No. 1 ranking.
This Wimbledon is shaping up to be a great one, too. That's because, for the first time since 2014, the Big Four are the top four seeds in the men's tournament. Murray's No. 1 and the defending champion, Nadal has been arguably the best player on tour this year, and a resurgent Roger skipped the French so he could prepare for this tournament. As odd as it is to say, Djokovic is the one who's struggling. After his early loss at the French, he was contemplating taking some time off, which I think he will after Wimbledon.
And of the four, Djokovic does seem the most vulnerable. He doesn't have an easy draw, starting with Juan Martin Del Potro, who's always a threat as long as he's healthy. Then there's Tomas Berdych, one of two active players outside the Big Four who's actually been to a Wimbledon final, lying in wait for the winner of that one in the quarters.
Which isn't to say the others have it easy. For Roger to hoist his record eighth Wimbledon trophy, he'll likely have to beat the guy who beat him in last year's semis--Milos Raonic. But that's exactly why Federer sat out the French Open. He might've won this year's Australian Open, but he knows that this is still his best tournament. And if vintage Roger shows up, it's not hard to picture him winning the title for the first time in five years.
In fact, I've got to say Federer is my slight favorite on the men's side. He wanted to make sure he was healthy for the grass court season, which he is. As evidence by his easy title in Halle. The other three, meanwhile, all have questions. With Djokovic it's mental. Murray's health is a concern. And will Nadal's body hold up to play seven best-of-five matches less than a month after winning his 10th French Open?
It's been 15 years since Lleyton Hewitt won the title. He's the last person outside of the Big Four to do so. In fact, of the 28 Wimbledon finalists since then, 25 of them have been either the Big Four or Andy Roddick. Don't expect that to change this year. They've dominated tennis for the last decade and a half for a reason. I'm gonna say Federer over Murray in the final, but another Roger-Rafa classic doesn't seem out of the question at all.
On the women's side, I think we're in for a tournament as unpredictable as the French Open was, although the likelihood of the out-of-nowhere champion is probably less likely. Although, we probably will see a first-time Wimbledon champion. That's because the only former winners in the field are Venus Williams and Petra Kvitova, who are on the same side of the bracket and would potentially meet in a semifinal. Unlike the men, though, there are a number of women who've lost the Wimbledon final in recent years and could conceivably get back there.
The No. 1 ranking is also at stake. Current No. 1 Angelique Kerber lost to Serena in the final last year and I think is in the best position to get back, her first-round loss at the French notwithstanding. If Kerber doesn't get back to the final, she'll lose the No. 1 ranking. No. 2 Simona Halep can snag it, but she'll have to get to the semis, which I think might be a tall order. Otherwise, the No. 1 ranking goes to Karolina Pliskova, who doesn't seem like much of a threat to win the title.
So who are threats to win the women's title? Well, there's Kerber. And Kvitova. And Venus. But I also like Caroline Wozniacki's chances. Woz has been playing great all year and was one of the few top players who actually had a good French Open. She still has that stigma of never having won a Slam (or even reaching a final somewhere other than the US Open), but I really think that could change this year.
Then there's No. 6 Johanna Konta, the highest-seeded British woman since Virginia Wade in 1977. That just happens to be the year Wade won her only Wimbledon title, which is still the last for a British woman (they really haven't even been close since then). Can Konta make some history of her own 40 years later? Or will the pressure get to her? Don't forget, she'd never won a Wimbledon match before last year, and the only Grand Slam where she's made a deep run is the Australian Open. I'm not saying she won't do it. But the Brits shouldn't expect to see one of their own winning the women's title just yet.
Besides, Konta's on the Kvitova/Venus side of the bracket, along with Halep. There are also two unseeded women who have potential to make some serious noise on the bottom half of the draw. One is Eugenie Bouchard, the 2014 runner-up who's really struggled since then. The other is Victoria Azarenka. This is Vika's first Grand Slam since giving birth, and I'm curious to see what her fitness level is at. She's probably not in a position to win, but she could definitely give some players headaches.
Some experts have predicted that this could be a breakout tournament for the American women, and I can see why. It's not just Venus Williams. There's also Madison Keys, Coco Vandeweghe and Bethanie Mattek-Sands to name just a few. Obviously Wimbledon has been Serena's domain for a while, but there's definitely cause to be excited about the American chances even with her out. However, while I think one or more of them could go on a deep run, I doubt it will end with a title.
Instead, I've gotta like Kerber, last year's finalist, and Kvitova, the two-time champion. I see them defeating Wozniacki and Venus Williams to get to the final, where Kerber wins her third Grand Slam title and first Wimbledon to hold on to her No. 1 ranking.
Saturday, July 1, 2017
2017 Joe Brackets All-Stars
With the official announcement coming tomorrow, it's time to reveal my selections for the 2017 All*Star Game, the first one in 15 years that won't decide home field advantage for the World Series. That's not the only change associated with this year's All*Star Game, though. They've trimmed the rosters from 34 players to 32, and the extra players after the fan and player ballots aren't determined solely by managers Joe Maddon and Terry Francona. They still have a ton of input, but it's now in consultation with the Commissioner's Office. My guess is too many questionable selections in recent years for Rob Manfred's liking.
I'll say this about the fan voting, too. After the Royals vs. the National League in 2015 and the Cubs vs. the American League last year, this year's voting has been excellent. No stuffing the ballot box and nobody who you can say doesn't deserve to be there at all among the leaders (although people really should've stopped voting for Mike Trout when he got hurt). You even have guys like Miguel Sano and Zack Cozart, who have been arguably the best in their respective leagues at their position this season, currently among the starters.
For my starting lineups, I went with the guys who were in the lead as of the final update as my projected starters. Trout's obviously injured, and there are a couple other players in the AL who I think will be selected but are currently out. So, I named replacements for them. Although, I don't know what the rule is on replacing Trout and whether or not they have to name another Angel in his place (that's the only reason you'll see Kole Calhoun's name below). I didn't name replacements for starting pitchers because I have no idea what each team's rotation is like and who's scheduled to start Sunday.
Besides, being scheduled to start on Sunday isn't necessarily going to preclude them from pitching in the All*Star Game. Clayton Kershaw is scheduled to start on Sunday, but Dave Roberts has said he'll adjust the Dodgers' rotation if it means Kershaw can start the All*Star Game. He never has (in 2013, Matt Harvey started over him at Citi Field), and it's clearly important to him. And it's an honor Kershaw deserves. I say give him the nod.
In the American League, the selection is easy. Chris Sale started last year with the White Sox. He changed his Sox, but I don't see a reason why he shouldn't start again this season. Sale pitched today, which means he's in line to start on either Thursday or Friday. He should be good to go for an All*Star start, so I think that one's a no-brainer.
One last comment before the selections. There's been a lot of debate about whether Aaron Judge will/should do the Home Run Derby. How could anybody possibly encourage him not to do it? Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) wants him to do it. Not just fans. Baseball people, too. It would be an incredibly unfortunate missed opportunity if Judge decides not to do it, and it would be a major disappointment for all involved. I think he knows that and will accept, perhaps after some gentle nudging.
Anyway, on to the All*Stars (we're back to normal with the AL as the road team in Miami after being the "home" team last year in San Diego):
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Salvador Perez, Royals; Gary Sanchez, Yankees
1B: *-Eric Hosmer, Royals; Yonder Alonso, Athletics
2B: *-Jose Altuve, Astros; x-Starlin Castro, Yankees; #-Jonathan Schoop, Orioles
SS: *-Carlos Correa, Astros; Xander Bogaerts, Red Sox; Elvis Andrus, Rangers
3B: *-Miguel Sano, Twins; Jose Ramirez, Indians
OF: *-Aaron Judge, Yankees; *-George Springer, Astros; x-Mike Trout, Angels; Mookie Betts, Red Sox; Avisail Garcia, White Sox; J.D. Martinez, Tigers; #-Kole Calhoun, Angels
DH: *-Nelson Cruz, Mariners; Corey Dickerson, Rays
P: Dylan Bundy, Orioles; Craig Kimbrel, Red Sox; Chris Sale, Red Sox; Corey Kluber, Indians; x-Dallas Keuchel, Astros; Lance McCullers, Astros; Jason Vargas, Royals; Brandon Kintzler, Twins; Ervin Santana, Twins; Dellin Betances, Yankees; Luis Severino, Yankees; Roberto Osuna, Blue Jays; #-Carlos Carrasco, Indians
(Final Vote: Marwin Gonzalez-OF, Astros; Didi Gregorius-SS, Yankees; Khris Davis-OF, Athletics; Logan Morrison-1B, Rays; Justin Smoak-1B, Blue Jays)
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Buster Posey, Giants; J.T. Realmuto, Marlins
1B: *-Ryan Zimmerman, Nationals; Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks; Joey Votto, Reds; Wil Myers, Padres
2B: *-Daniel Murphy, Nationals; D.J. LeMahieu, Rockies
SS: *-Zack Cozart, Reds; Corey Seager, Dodgers
3B: *-Kris Bryant, Cubs; Nolan Arenado, Rockies
OF: *-Bryce Harper, Nationals; *-Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; *-Marcell Ozuna, Marlins; Ender Inciarte, Braves; Cody Bellinger, Dodgers; Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins; Aaron Altherr, Phillies
P: Zack Greinke, Diamondbacks; Robbie Ray, Diamondbacks; Wade Davis, Cubs; Greg Holland, Rockies; Kenley Jansen, Dodgers; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Travis Wood, Dodgers; Corey Knebel, Brewers; Jacob de Grom, Mets; Ivan Nova, Pirates; Carlos Martinez, Cardinals; Max Scherzer, Nationals
(Final Vote: Jake Lamb-3B, Diamondbacks; Matt Kemp-OF, Braves; Adam Duvall-OF, Reds; Justin Turner-3B, Dodgers; Travis Shaw-3B, Brewers)
*-starter, x-injured, #-injury replacement
My National League DH is Goldschmidt, and my starting pitchers are Kershaw and Sale. The highest vote-getter in the player ballot would replace Trout in the starting lineup, and I'm assuming that'll be Avisail Garcia.
I'll say this about the fan voting, too. After the Royals vs. the National League in 2015 and the Cubs vs. the American League last year, this year's voting has been excellent. No stuffing the ballot box and nobody who you can say doesn't deserve to be there at all among the leaders (although people really should've stopped voting for Mike Trout when he got hurt). You even have guys like Miguel Sano and Zack Cozart, who have been arguably the best in their respective leagues at their position this season, currently among the starters.
For my starting lineups, I went with the guys who were in the lead as of the final update as my projected starters. Trout's obviously injured, and there are a couple other players in the AL who I think will be selected but are currently out. So, I named replacements for them. Although, I don't know what the rule is on replacing Trout and whether or not they have to name another Angel in his place (that's the only reason you'll see Kole Calhoun's name below). I didn't name replacements for starting pitchers because I have no idea what each team's rotation is like and who's scheduled to start Sunday.
Besides, being scheduled to start on Sunday isn't necessarily going to preclude them from pitching in the All*Star Game. Clayton Kershaw is scheduled to start on Sunday, but Dave Roberts has said he'll adjust the Dodgers' rotation if it means Kershaw can start the All*Star Game. He never has (in 2013, Matt Harvey started over him at Citi Field), and it's clearly important to him. And it's an honor Kershaw deserves. I say give him the nod.
In the American League, the selection is easy. Chris Sale started last year with the White Sox. He changed his Sox, but I don't see a reason why he shouldn't start again this season. Sale pitched today, which means he's in line to start on either Thursday or Friday. He should be good to go for an All*Star start, so I think that one's a no-brainer.
One last comment before the selections. There's been a lot of debate about whether Aaron Judge will/should do the Home Run Derby. How could anybody possibly encourage him not to do it? Everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) wants him to do it. Not just fans. Baseball people, too. It would be an incredibly unfortunate missed opportunity if Judge decides not to do it, and it would be a major disappointment for all involved. I think he knows that and will accept, perhaps after some gentle nudging.
Anyway, on to the All*Stars (we're back to normal with the AL as the road team in Miami after being the "home" team last year in San Diego):
AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: *-Salvador Perez, Royals; Gary Sanchez, Yankees
1B: *-Eric Hosmer, Royals; Yonder Alonso, Athletics
2B: *-Jose Altuve, Astros; x-Starlin Castro, Yankees; #-Jonathan Schoop, Orioles
SS: *-Carlos Correa, Astros; Xander Bogaerts, Red Sox; Elvis Andrus, Rangers
3B: *-Miguel Sano, Twins; Jose Ramirez, Indians
OF: *-Aaron Judge, Yankees; *-George Springer, Astros; x-Mike Trout, Angels; Mookie Betts, Red Sox; Avisail Garcia, White Sox; J.D. Martinez, Tigers; #-Kole Calhoun, Angels
DH: *-Nelson Cruz, Mariners; Corey Dickerson, Rays
P: Dylan Bundy, Orioles; Craig Kimbrel, Red Sox; Chris Sale, Red Sox; Corey Kluber, Indians; x-Dallas Keuchel, Astros; Lance McCullers, Astros; Jason Vargas, Royals; Brandon Kintzler, Twins; Ervin Santana, Twins; Dellin Betances, Yankees; Luis Severino, Yankees; Roberto Osuna, Blue Jays; #-Carlos Carrasco, Indians
(Final Vote: Marwin Gonzalez-OF, Astros; Didi Gregorius-SS, Yankees; Khris Davis-OF, Athletics; Logan Morrison-1B, Rays; Justin Smoak-1B, Blue Jays)
NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: *-Buster Posey, Giants; J.T. Realmuto, Marlins
1B: *-Ryan Zimmerman, Nationals; Paul Goldschmidt, Diamondbacks; Joey Votto, Reds; Wil Myers, Padres
2B: *-Daniel Murphy, Nationals; D.J. LeMahieu, Rockies
SS: *-Zack Cozart, Reds; Corey Seager, Dodgers
3B: *-Kris Bryant, Cubs; Nolan Arenado, Rockies
OF: *-Bryce Harper, Nationals; *-Charlie Blackmon, Rockies; *-Marcell Ozuna, Marlins; Ender Inciarte, Braves; Cody Bellinger, Dodgers; Giancarlo Stanton, Marlins; Aaron Altherr, Phillies
P: Zack Greinke, Diamondbacks; Robbie Ray, Diamondbacks; Wade Davis, Cubs; Greg Holland, Rockies; Kenley Jansen, Dodgers; Clayton Kershaw, Dodgers; Travis Wood, Dodgers; Corey Knebel, Brewers; Jacob de Grom, Mets; Ivan Nova, Pirates; Carlos Martinez, Cardinals; Max Scherzer, Nationals
(Final Vote: Jake Lamb-3B, Diamondbacks; Matt Kemp-OF, Braves; Adam Duvall-OF, Reds; Justin Turner-3B, Dodgers; Travis Shaw-3B, Brewers)
*-starter, x-injured, #-injury replacement
My National League DH is Goldschmidt, and my starting pitchers are Kershaw and Sale. The highest vote-getter in the player ballot would replace Trout in the starting lineup, and I'm assuming that'll be Avisail Garcia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)