Last year, in a controversial move, the IAAF announced that it was doing away with qualifying standards and was instead developing a world ranking system to be used for determining entries into the World Championships and Olympics moving forward. It was met with a vast amount of criticism, for a number of reasons (which were pretty much all valid).
As a result, the IAAF backtracked and announced that they would still begin the world ranking system this year, but only so that athletes can get used to the system and see how it works. It won't be used for World Championships qualifying, which will be done the old way with qualifying standards in each event. Although, they're evidently planning on the world rankings being a full-go by 2020...and that's what they'll use as the sole means of Olympic qualifying (there will still be qualifying standards, but they'll be so high only the top handful of athletes will reach them).
They recently released a world ranking simulation based on last year's results. They did this to help people understand the system while also showing an example of how it'll work. And, I've gotta say, after checking out the sample 2018 rankings, those concerns/criticisms from the athletes certainly seem justified. It provides some clarity about the process, but there are still plenty of questions that need to be answered.
For starters, there is an inherent flaw in the system. The IAAF has said that the whole point of the world rankings is to encourage top athletes to participate in the top competitions, with the bigger meets worth more points (just like in tennis, where the Grand Slams are worth more). However, Diamond League meets are invitation-only, which gives an inherent advantage to the biggest names. And, at the same time, it indirectly penalizes those athletes that have to compete at lesser meets because they aren't "good" enough for the Diamond League.
The rankings are designed to reward consistency, with athletes needing to compete in five meets in order to get a score (less in the longer events). However, that doesn't guarantee they'll go head-to-head, which was also one of their desired objectives. It also means that since a Diamond League discipline will be contested at least five times, the top athletes theoretically don't have to compete in any non-Diamond League meets and it will have no impact on their ranking. Which completely defeats the purpose if the point was to get them to compete more.
Performances also seem to have no bearing on the rankings. Instead, they appear to be based strictly on results. More specifically, head-to-head placements. But what if an athlete sets a world/area/national record? That performance should be rewarded. Even if it's with bonus points. Setting a record is incredibly difficult. It shouldn't be irrelevant when it comes to world rankings.
And, frankly, what was the problem with the old method of going by the yearly performance list? Yes, the idea of rewarding consistency over a single good performance in April is a good one. But people are going to understand a descending-order performance list a hell of a lot more easily than a complicated point system.
I'll use the women's 800 as an example since the 2:00 threshold is a simple one. There were 27 women who ran faster than 2:00 in 2018 (and a handful who just missed). So, it's a lot easier for all involved to set a qualifying standard of 2:00, then go to the descending order list after that to fill the field (in the 800, that's 48).
Which brings me to my next point. The world rankings identify the top athletes in each event, and they go down that list until they hit their target number for the World Championships/Olympics. However, since countries are limited to three entries per event, they sometimes have to go pretty far down in order to get to that number. In the men's 5000, for example, seven of the first 11 are Ethiopian, so they have to go to No. 63 before getting a full field of 42.
That's not where I have a problem, though. My problem, rather, is those four Ethiopians in the top 11 who could be World medalists, but would have no shot at even going if selections were based strictly on rankings.
Or, take the United States. There are a whole lot more than three Americans who'd make the cut in pretty much every event. Going back as long as anyone can remember, the top three finishers at U.S. Nationals make the team for World/the Olympics. I don't think anyone involved with USATF has any desire to change that system. My guess is they'd figure out some way to do it where the top three go as long as they're above the cut-line, but that will need to be clearly spelled out. Especially in the super deep events like the men's 100 or women's 400 hurdles.
There's also no provision for athletes returning from an absence, whether it be for injury or another reason. Allyson Felix and Veronica Campbell-Brown just had babies, so they obviously didn't run in 2018. Likewise, David Rudisha has been injured for about two years and Wayde Van Niekerk's 2018 was cut short by injury. Four Olympic gold medalists, none of whom have any performances to base a world ranking on. All four of them can obviously get into Diamond Leagues, but how do you determine their status for other meets if you're using their non-existent world rankings instead of their performances?
On the surface, the idea of world rankings isn't a terrible one. But the process by which the IAAF plans to determine them definitely has its flaws. For starters, it doesn't say anywhere on the IAAF website how many points an athlete gets for winning an event at a given meet. All it says is that the "Performance Score=Result Score + Placing Score." What any of that means is anybody's guess.
In order to get people on board with the process, it needs to be more transparent. We need to know what the rankings mean and how they're calculated. And they shouldn't be used as the only qualifying system for major events, either. I have no problem with using them as a supplemental qualifying system, but they can't just eliminate the old method altogether. An athlete should be able to know that reaching a certain standard (or, for Americans, getting the job done on the day, when it counts) is good enough to get them into the World Championships or Olympics, regardless of their world ranking.
Monday, March 4, 2019
Saturday, March 2, 2019
MLB Most & Least Improved
Spring is in the air. Bryce and Manny have finally signed, and now we can really start assessing the winners and losers of the offseason. Of course, there's always that team that makes a big splash then crashes and burns, but we have no idea who that will be yet. All we can do right now is speculate who's going to be better or worse based on the moves they've made. Here are my top five on both sides...
Most Improved
Phillies: Even before they sealed the deal with Bryce Harper, the Phillies were the one team that had improved themselves the most this offseason. Their owner said he was going to spend "stupid money" to get Harper, but his free agent spending also landed David Robertson and Andrew McCutchen. They also traded for J.T. Realmuto and Jean Segura, meaning that half of their starting lineup wasn't on the team last season. And those four are all better than the four they're replacing.
Cardinals: Three years out of the playoffs is a long time in St. Louis. Too long, in fact. So the Cardinals addressed two of their most glaring needs by trading for Paul Goldschmidt and signing Andrew Miller. Goldschmidt is one of the best players in the National League, and he gives them the right-handed power bat that they haven't had since Albert left. Miller, meanwhile, shores up what had been a shaky bullpen. Is it enough to get past the Cubs and Brewers? Maybe not. But they'll definitely be in the wild card discussion.
Reds: Cincinnati still probably isn't going to be that good. But they'll be a lot more interesting and a lot more fun to watch now that they've got Yasiel Puig. It was a salary dump for the Dodgers, but a smart move for the Reds, who needed somebody for people to get excited about other than Joey Votto. They dramatically improved their pitching, too, signing Alex Wood and Zach Duke and trading for Sonny Gray (who, for their sake, I hope sucks less than when he was on the Yankees). Hopefully they won't have a starter with a season like Homer Bailey's 2018 (1-14 with a 6.09 ERA in 20 starts) again.
Mets: The NL East is arguably going to be the most competitive division in baseball this season. The Mets know that. Which is one of the reasons why they knew they needed to improve their roster. Their biggest move, of course, was the trade with Seattle that yielded Robinson Cano and Edwin Diaz, that simultaneously excised them from Jay Bruce's contract. Maybe they'll score more than two runs a game in deGrom's starts now.
Twins: After making the playoffs in 2017, Minnesota dropped off badly in 2018. But, in a winnable AL Central, the Twins have put themselves in a position to do just that. Even with Joe Mauer retired. New Twins include first baseman C.J. Cron, second baseman Jonathan Schoop, former Astros Mr. Do Everything Marwin Gonzalez, and DH Nelson Cruz. And if Byron Buxton and Miguel Sano can recover from disastrous 2018s that got them sent down, Minnesota's lineup will really be dramatically better.
Least Improved
Miami and Baltimore aren't included on the list of least improved teams because they aren't trying to be good. Some of these teams are also "rebuilding," but they also hope to at least be competitive. Which may be a challenge.
Mariners: MLB's longest active postseason drought seems destined to continue. The Mariners have put themselves in a difficult spot. They want to rebuild while not completely throwing in the towel. But the team that they tried to win with last season was better than the one they currently have, which leads you to believe rebuild is going to win that battle. Not that dumping Cano's contract was a bad thing. Trading it for Jay Bruce's, though? And they really have no pitching now that Big Maple is in pinstripes.
Braves: It's not that the Braves are necessarily going to be bad. They retained a lot of their division-winning squad from a year ago. It's just that the Mets and Phillies got significantly better and the Nationals, even without Harper, are still better than them on paper. Atlanta did bring in Josh Donaldson and brought Brian McCann back, but are those two veterans enough to hold off three teams in the most competitive division?
Astros: Houston is still going to be the favorite in the AL West. But, on paper, the 2019 Astros don't look as strong as the 2017 World Champions or the 2018 edition that won 100 games. Michael Brantley is a huge risk because of his injury history, and I really think they're gonna be feeling the loss of Marwin Gonzalez. They haven't shown much interest in re-signing Dallas Keuchel, either. And that third starting pitcher is something they'll definitely need come October (which they should still get to).
Diamondbacks: Last year, the Diamondbacks were neck-and-neck with the Dodgers and Rockies for most of the season. But entering 2019, they're lagging far behind both LA and Colorado. I don't need to tell you how huge a loss Goldschmidt's bat is in the middle of that lineup. I can't even say I know what their plan for first base is. There are still a bunch of free agents out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Arizona signs one. But if they don't, they seem more likely to be battling the Giants and Padres than the Dodgers and Rockies. Especially since Patrick Corbin was their best pitcher and he's gone, too.
White Sox: This is what happens when you put all your eggs in the Harper/Machado basket and don't land either one. Even signing Machado's brother-in-law wasn't enough to convince him to join the White Sox. As a result, it was a very fruitless offseason on the South Side. And now they're left with lesser free agents if they want to make any moves to improve their team. Had they been able to do something significant, they'd be a contender in the AL Central. Instead, they're looking at 75 wins if they're lucky.
Most Improved
Phillies: Even before they sealed the deal with Bryce Harper, the Phillies were the one team that had improved themselves the most this offseason. Their owner said he was going to spend "stupid money" to get Harper, but his free agent spending also landed David Robertson and Andrew McCutchen. They also traded for J.T. Realmuto and Jean Segura, meaning that half of their starting lineup wasn't on the team last season. And those four are all better than the four they're replacing.
Cardinals: Three years out of the playoffs is a long time in St. Louis. Too long, in fact. So the Cardinals addressed two of their most glaring needs by trading for Paul Goldschmidt and signing Andrew Miller. Goldschmidt is one of the best players in the National League, and he gives them the right-handed power bat that they haven't had since Albert left. Miller, meanwhile, shores up what had been a shaky bullpen. Is it enough to get past the Cubs and Brewers? Maybe not. But they'll definitely be in the wild card discussion.
Reds: Cincinnati still probably isn't going to be that good. But they'll be a lot more interesting and a lot more fun to watch now that they've got Yasiel Puig. It was a salary dump for the Dodgers, but a smart move for the Reds, who needed somebody for people to get excited about other than Joey Votto. They dramatically improved their pitching, too, signing Alex Wood and Zach Duke and trading for Sonny Gray (who, for their sake, I hope sucks less than when he was on the Yankees). Hopefully they won't have a starter with a season like Homer Bailey's 2018 (1-14 with a 6.09 ERA in 20 starts) again.
Mets: The NL East is arguably going to be the most competitive division in baseball this season. The Mets know that. Which is one of the reasons why they knew they needed to improve their roster. Their biggest move, of course, was the trade with Seattle that yielded Robinson Cano and Edwin Diaz, that simultaneously excised them from Jay Bruce's contract. Maybe they'll score more than two runs a game in deGrom's starts now.
Twins: After making the playoffs in 2017, Minnesota dropped off badly in 2018. But, in a winnable AL Central, the Twins have put themselves in a position to do just that. Even with Joe Mauer retired. New Twins include first baseman C.J. Cron, second baseman Jonathan Schoop, former Astros Mr. Do Everything Marwin Gonzalez, and DH Nelson Cruz. And if Byron Buxton and Miguel Sano can recover from disastrous 2018s that got them sent down, Minnesota's lineup will really be dramatically better.
Least Improved
Miami and Baltimore aren't included on the list of least improved teams because they aren't trying to be good. Some of these teams are also "rebuilding," but they also hope to at least be competitive. Which may be a challenge.
Mariners: MLB's longest active postseason drought seems destined to continue. The Mariners have put themselves in a difficult spot. They want to rebuild while not completely throwing in the towel. But the team that they tried to win with last season was better than the one they currently have, which leads you to believe rebuild is going to win that battle. Not that dumping Cano's contract was a bad thing. Trading it for Jay Bruce's, though? And they really have no pitching now that Big Maple is in pinstripes.
Braves: It's not that the Braves are necessarily going to be bad. They retained a lot of their division-winning squad from a year ago. It's just that the Mets and Phillies got significantly better and the Nationals, even without Harper, are still better than them on paper. Atlanta did bring in Josh Donaldson and brought Brian McCann back, but are those two veterans enough to hold off three teams in the most competitive division?
Astros: Houston is still going to be the favorite in the AL West. But, on paper, the 2019 Astros don't look as strong as the 2017 World Champions or the 2018 edition that won 100 games. Michael Brantley is a huge risk because of his injury history, and I really think they're gonna be feeling the loss of Marwin Gonzalez. They haven't shown much interest in re-signing Dallas Keuchel, either. And that third starting pitcher is something they'll definitely need come October (which they should still get to).
Diamondbacks: Last year, the Diamondbacks were neck-and-neck with the Dodgers and Rockies for most of the season. But entering 2019, they're lagging far behind both LA and Colorado. I don't need to tell you how huge a loss Goldschmidt's bat is in the middle of that lineup. I can't even say I know what their plan for first base is. There are still a bunch of free agents out there, and I wouldn't be surprised if Arizona signs one. But if they don't, they seem more likely to be battling the Giants and Padres than the Dodgers and Rockies. Especially since Patrick Corbin was their best pitcher and he's gone, too.
White Sox: This is what happens when you put all your eggs in the Harper/Machado basket and don't land either one. Even signing Machado's brother-in-law wasn't enough to convince him to join the White Sox. As a result, it was a very fruitless offseason on the South Side. And now they're left with lesser free agents if they want to make any moves to improve their team. Had they been able to do something significant, they'd be a contender in the AL Central. Instead, they're looking at 75 wins if they're lucky.
Thursday, February 28, 2019
Replacing Witten
It only took Jason Witten a few months and tons of criticism to realize he was better at playing football than talking about it. So, he has done us all a favor by unretiring and resuming his future Hall of Fame career with the Cowboys. As a result, we'll mercifully be spared any more of his painful Monday Night Football "commentary."
Which also means ESPN once again has to rejuggle the MNF booth. Hopefully this time they do it a little better. Because everyone knows the whole Witten and Booger McFarland thing didn't work. They were probably going to make a change anyway. And I can't help but think that, even though Witten said the decision to return to the Cowboys was 100 percent his own, he received a gentle nudge out the door.
They could always just go back to a two-man crew and move Booger up to the booth. That also seemed like it was going to happen regardless. Because as bad as Witten was, Booger's stupid bunker-thingy on the field was just as terrible. It was obtrusive and it made Lisa Salters (the best member of that crew) completely unnecessary.
Anyway, it's not like Booger being on the field added anything. So I think he moves to the booth regardless. But Booger, while much better than Witten, isn't exactly a great analyst either. Besides, he doesn't have the name recognition or Wow! factor to be the solo (or lead) analyst on one of the NFL's signature properties.
Especially after CBS hit a home run with Tony Romo, they need to hit their own with Jason Witten's replacement. With that in mind, here are some ideas for possible replacements...
Peyton Manning -- Ever since he retired, he's been the Holy Grail. All of the networks want him, and Peyton will have his choice when and if he ever decides to begin his broadcasting career. ESPN made the call last year, but Peyton turned them down and they hired Witten instead. Will he change his mind when they call him again? If he wants it, the job is his.
Steve Young -- He already works for ESPN, so it would be easy to move him from Monday Night Countdown to the booth. Although, Young's been a studio analyst for so long, I wonder if he'd want to make the switch. Because I'm not sure if he's ever been a game analyst before, and there's definitely a difference. Plus, he might not be a splashy enough name for them. I think he'd do a good job if given the chance, though.
Charles Woodson -- Like Young, Woodson already works for ESPN. He's new enough to the Monday Night Countdown crew that it would be easy to move him to the booth. He's also not that far removed from his playing career, so he's still a familiar name for the fans.
Rex Ryan -- Another in-house candidate, he could be their new Gruden. Coaches see the game differently than players, and it's always interesting to hear that perspective. It's what made Gruden so good on MNF for all those years. He's done the other game of that Week 1 doubleheader pretty much since joining ESPN, so we've already seen him in action.
Jay Feely -- Hiring a former kicker as a lead game analyst would be unorthodox for sure. But Feely has proven capable. He does like the No. 7 game when CBS has one, but he spends most of his time on the main crew as the "kicking game analyst" talking about wind conditions, etc. It's definitely an interesting approach. He probably wouldn't be the lead candidate for the MNF gig. But he shouldn't be discounted for being a kicker, either.
Joe Thomas -- I would've suggested Andrew Whitworth had he not decided to play another year with the Rams. So instead I'll go with another offensive tackle...future Hall of Famer Joe Thomas. He missed most of 2017, then retired, so he's essentially two years removed from playing. You could tell throughout his career that Thomas was destined to become either a coach or a broadcaster, so here's the opportunity to kick-start that broadcasting career.
Tony Gonzalez -- Other than Peyton, he's probably the biggest name they can get. And, unlike the last tight end they hired, Gonzalez actually has broadcasting experience. He was on The NFL Today for three years before leaving CBS for FOX's pre-pregame show. I have no idea what his contract status is, but if there's a clause that lets him move, it could be worth the risk for ESPN.
Kurt Warner -- If they can't get Peyton Manning, I think Kurt Warner would be the best possible alternative. He currently works for NFL Network, so his contract status might prevent it, but Warner would be great. When he does those December Saturday games with Mike Tirico, it leaves you wondering what if? What if Warner was a full-time game analyst instead of spending so much time in the studio?
Whatever ESPN ends up doing, they know they have to find someone better than new/old Dallas Cowboy Jason Witten. Although, seeing as the bar has been set incredibly low, that shouldn't be too hard.
Which also means ESPN once again has to rejuggle the MNF booth. Hopefully this time they do it a little better. Because everyone knows the whole Witten and Booger McFarland thing didn't work. They were probably going to make a change anyway. And I can't help but think that, even though Witten said the decision to return to the Cowboys was 100 percent his own, he received a gentle nudge out the door.
They could always just go back to a two-man crew and move Booger up to the booth. That also seemed like it was going to happen regardless. Because as bad as Witten was, Booger's stupid bunker-thingy on the field was just as terrible. It was obtrusive and it made Lisa Salters (the best member of that crew) completely unnecessary.
Anyway, it's not like Booger being on the field added anything. So I think he moves to the booth regardless. But Booger, while much better than Witten, isn't exactly a great analyst either. Besides, he doesn't have the name recognition or Wow! factor to be the solo (or lead) analyst on one of the NFL's signature properties.
Especially after CBS hit a home run with Tony Romo, they need to hit their own with Jason Witten's replacement. With that in mind, here are some ideas for possible replacements...
Peyton Manning -- Ever since he retired, he's been the Holy Grail. All of the networks want him, and Peyton will have his choice when and if he ever decides to begin his broadcasting career. ESPN made the call last year, but Peyton turned them down and they hired Witten instead. Will he change his mind when they call him again? If he wants it, the job is his.
Steve Young -- He already works for ESPN, so it would be easy to move him from Monday Night Countdown to the booth. Although, Young's been a studio analyst for so long, I wonder if he'd want to make the switch. Because I'm not sure if he's ever been a game analyst before, and there's definitely a difference. Plus, he might not be a splashy enough name for them. I think he'd do a good job if given the chance, though.
Charles Woodson -- Like Young, Woodson already works for ESPN. He's new enough to the Monday Night Countdown crew that it would be easy to move him to the booth. He's also not that far removed from his playing career, so he's still a familiar name for the fans.
Rex Ryan -- Another in-house candidate, he could be their new Gruden. Coaches see the game differently than players, and it's always interesting to hear that perspective. It's what made Gruden so good on MNF for all those years. He's done the other game of that Week 1 doubleheader pretty much since joining ESPN, so we've already seen him in action.
Jay Feely -- Hiring a former kicker as a lead game analyst would be unorthodox for sure. But Feely has proven capable. He does like the No. 7 game when CBS has one, but he spends most of his time on the main crew as the "kicking game analyst" talking about wind conditions, etc. It's definitely an interesting approach. He probably wouldn't be the lead candidate for the MNF gig. But he shouldn't be discounted for being a kicker, either.
Joe Thomas -- I would've suggested Andrew Whitworth had he not decided to play another year with the Rams. So instead I'll go with another offensive tackle...future Hall of Famer Joe Thomas. He missed most of 2017, then retired, so he's essentially two years removed from playing. You could tell throughout his career that Thomas was destined to become either a coach or a broadcaster, so here's the opportunity to kick-start that broadcasting career.
Tony Gonzalez -- Other than Peyton, he's probably the biggest name they can get. And, unlike the last tight end they hired, Gonzalez actually has broadcasting experience. He was on The NFL Today for three years before leaving CBS for FOX's pre-pregame show. I have no idea what his contract status is, but if there's a clause that lets him move, it could be worth the risk for ESPN.
Kurt Warner -- If they can't get Peyton Manning, I think Kurt Warner would be the best possible alternative. He currently works for NFL Network, so his contract status might prevent it, but Warner would be great. When he does those December Saturday games with Mike Tirico, it leaves you wondering what if? What if Warner was a full-time game analyst instead of spending so much time in the studio?
Whatever ESPN ends up doing, they know they have to find someone better than new/old Dallas Cowboy Jason Witten. Although, seeing as the bar has been set incredibly low, that shouldn't be too hard.
Wednesday, February 27, 2019
The NFL Needs to Come Down, and Come Down Hard
I know I'm supposed to be shocked by Robert Kraft getting busted for solicitation, but I'm really not. There's nothing about this story that shocks me. In this day and age, that's become virtually impossible. So, I'm not at all surprised by what happened. Just like I'm not at all surprised that a 70-something-year-old billionaire would engage in that sort of behavior.
And, to all the Patriots fans who I'm sure are choosing to view this as yet another example of the NFL being "out to get" the Patriots, that couldn't be further from the truth. For starters, the sting was run by the FBI, not the NFL. And it was designed to bust anyone who frequented one of those parlors. Robert Kraft wasn't the target. But there's no way he was there accidentally, either.
Our legal system is based entirely on the presumption of innocence. So it's unfair to judge him before the legal process plays out. But the details don't exactly look good for him. For starters, he was seen on surveillance video. Second, he was in and out in 15 minutes, which seems to indicate they knew he was coming, he did what was going to do, and he left. And third, he definitely had the means to be in Florida at 1:30 in the afternoon, then fly to Kansas City for the AFC Championship Game that night.
It's things like this that make people hate the Patriots. Yes, we're sick of the winning and how arrogant they are about it and how they make up situations where they're "disrespected" as a means of motivating themselves. But it's more than that. First there was Spygate. Then there was Deflategate. Now this. Granted this one has nothing to do with football, but it doesn't help the perception that the Patriots (despite already being better than everybody) can't help themselves when it comes to cheating.
After both of those scandals, the NFL effectively gave the Patriots a slap on the wrist. But if the allegations against Kraft prove to be true, they need to come down hard. I'm not saying they need to drop the hammer. But this would be three strikes. And the league would need to make a statement. No franchise, no matter how successful, is above the league. Especially when that franchise has now been involved in not one, not two, but three separate incidents.
Too many players have been suspended for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. But it isn't just players who are subject to the personal conduct policy. It's all league personnel, including coaches and owners. Which means the Commissioner would be well within his rights to suspend Robert Kraft, whether he's found guilty or not.
Owners and players are held to the same standard, but I'd argue that the standard should be even higher for the owners. They're the adults in the room. And they're the ones who drive the multi-billion dollar business...and benefit the most from it. Which is why a fine wouldn't work.
A million dollars is nothing for someone like Robert Kraft. And what message would that really send anyway? It would say that an owner can commit a crime and essentially go unpunished, but if a player does the same thing, a four-game suspension (or longer) is a virtual certainty. Talk about a double standard! And you can bet that's something the players would be sure to point out when the next round of CBA negotiations begin.
Some people have suggested that the NFL could/should even force Kraft to sell the Patriots, but that step would be a bit drastic to say the least. This isn't the NBA forcing Donald Sterling to sell the Clippers or even a year ago with Jerry Richardson and Carolina. In both of those situations, the owner's actions forced the league's hand. They had no other choice. There was no place for either Sterling or Richardson after what happened.
This is far different. This would be merely holding someone accountable for his actions. And there's precedent for it. Major League Baseball suspended George Steinbrenner in the early 90s, and then-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo was suspended by the NFL in 1999 after pleading guilty to a felony. Solicitation is a misdemeanor. But it's still a crime. Which means a suspension would be reasonable.
The Patriots would be just fine without him, too. His son, Jonathan, is the team president and already runs a lot of the football operations. He figures to inherit the team upon Robert's death, so it'd be natural to assume he'd take on those duties for however long his father is suspended. They'd still have Bradicheck, too.
Regardless of how the legal process pays out, you have to figure there'll be some sort of repercussions for Robert Kraft. Whether it's a massive fine (which would accomplish nothing) or a suspension or the loss of draft picks (where it'll hit the hardest), Kraft should be held accountable. Otherwise, the NFL will be sending absolutely the wrong message.
Not doing anything would effectively be condoning his actions. What's worse, the next person who's suspended under the personal conduct policy would then be able to point to that as the example of the NFL having a double standard. And they wouldn't exactly be wrong.
Although, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't suspend him. The last thing we need is another reason for the Patriots and their fans to get all fired up about the "conspiracy" against them and use it as motivation for another run to the Patriots Game.
And, to all the Patriots fans who I'm sure are choosing to view this as yet another example of the NFL being "out to get" the Patriots, that couldn't be further from the truth. For starters, the sting was run by the FBI, not the NFL. And it was designed to bust anyone who frequented one of those parlors. Robert Kraft wasn't the target. But there's no way he was there accidentally, either.
Our legal system is based entirely on the presumption of innocence. So it's unfair to judge him before the legal process plays out. But the details don't exactly look good for him. For starters, he was seen on surveillance video. Second, he was in and out in 15 minutes, which seems to indicate they knew he was coming, he did what was going to do, and he left. And third, he definitely had the means to be in Florida at 1:30 in the afternoon, then fly to Kansas City for the AFC Championship Game that night.
It's things like this that make people hate the Patriots. Yes, we're sick of the winning and how arrogant they are about it and how they make up situations where they're "disrespected" as a means of motivating themselves. But it's more than that. First there was Spygate. Then there was Deflategate. Now this. Granted this one has nothing to do with football, but it doesn't help the perception that the Patriots (despite already being better than everybody) can't help themselves when it comes to cheating.
After both of those scandals, the NFL effectively gave the Patriots a slap on the wrist. But if the allegations against Kraft prove to be true, they need to come down hard. I'm not saying they need to drop the hammer. But this would be three strikes. And the league would need to make a statement. No franchise, no matter how successful, is above the league. Especially when that franchise has now been involved in not one, not two, but three separate incidents.
Too many players have been suspended for violating the NFL's personal conduct policy. But it isn't just players who are subject to the personal conduct policy. It's all league personnel, including coaches and owners. Which means the Commissioner would be well within his rights to suspend Robert Kraft, whether he's found guilty or not.
Owners and players are held to the same standard, but I'd argue that the standard should be even higher for the owners. They're the adults in the room. And they're the ones who drive the multi-billion dollar business...and benefit the most from it. Which is why a fine wouldn't work.
A million dollars is nothing for someone like Robert Kraft. And what message would that really send anyway? It would say that an owner can commit a crime and essentially go unpunished, but if a player does the same thing, a four-game suspension (or longer) is a virtual certainty. Talk about a double standard! And you can bet that's something the players would be sure to point out when the next round of CBA negotiations begin.
Some people have suggested that the NFL could/should even force Kraft to sell the Patriots, but that step would be a bit drastic to say the least. This isn't the NBA forcing Donald Sterling to sell the Clippers or even a year ago with Jerry Richardson and Carolina. In both of those situations, the owner's actions forced the league's hand. They had no other choice. There was no place for either Sterling or Richardson after what happened.
This is far different. This would be merely holding someone accountable for his actions. And there's precedent for it. Major League Baseball suspended George Steinbrenner in the early 90s, and then-49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo was suspended by the NFL in 1999 after pleading guilty to a felony. Solicitation is a misdemeanor. But it's still a crime. Which means a suspension would be reasonable.
The Patriots would be just fine without him, too. His son, Jonathan, is the team president and already runs a lot of the football operations. He figures to inherit the team upon Robert's death, so it'd be natural to assume he'd take on those duties for however long his father is suspended. They'd still have Bradicheck, too.
Regardless of how the legal process pays out, you have to figure there'll be some sort of repercussions for Robert Kraft. Whether it's a massive fine (which would accomplish nothing) or a suspension or the loss of draft picks (where it'll hit the hardest), Kraft should be held accountable. Otherwise, the NFL will be sending absolutely the wrong message.
Not doing anything would effectively be condoning his actions. What's worse, the next person who's suspended under the personal conduct policy would then be able to point to that as the example of the NFL having a double standard. And they wouldn't exactly be wrong.
Although, on second thought, maybe they shouldn't suspend him. The last thing we need is another reason for the Patriots and their fans to get all fired up about the "conspiracy" against them and use it as motivation for another run to the Patriots Game.
Monday, February 25, 2019
Let's Go Back to Adding Sports the Old Way
Can the IOC be any more obvious in its desire to turn the Olympics into the X Games? Paris 2024 has unveiled the list of additional sports it has recommended for Olympic inclusion. Three of them--sport climbing, skateboarding and surfing--will already be part of the Olympic program next year in Tokyo. The fourth is, and I can't believe I'm saying this because it's so ridiculous...break dancing. But, hey, at least e "sports" didn't make the cut (at least not officially, more on that in a bit)!
All of this is in a blantant attempt to make the Olympics "more relevant to youth." And apparently they were successful in that objective. They did a survey right after the announcement and 79 percent of French people approved of the new sports, with that jumping to 89 percent favorable among 15-25 year-olds.
It was rumored that they'd also be proposing e "sports," but that seems to be off the table for now. At least as a medal event. Although, they're evidently planning on having some sort of offshore racing event in sailing, which would include some interactive elements. And sailing isn't the only sport to have that idea, either. Word is they're considering it in rowing and cycling, too.
The IOC has been obsessed with appealing to younger generations for a while now. That's why they created the Youth Olympics, the beast which unleashed break dancing on the world in the first place. Break dancing (or "breaking") was one of the most popular sports at the 2018 Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. And evidently that's all you need to be included in the regular Olympics now.
I'd like to see the results of that same survey among fans/viewers of the traditional Olympic sports. Because that's the risk the IOC runs by adding all of these X Games sports to the Olympics. You want more youth to watch, but they aren't your core audience. And you risk alienating your core audience by catering to younger fans/athletes at their expense.
Not to mention the federations of the 26 core Olympic sports, who the IOC is basically telling, "We don't care about you." They're so concerned with appealing to youth that the traditional Olympic sports--the ones that are guaranteed places on the program--are forced to play second fiddle to these potential one-off sports that are guaranteed nothing beyond the one Olympics that the host has decided to include them in.
Another thing that can't sit well with the international federations is the 10,500-athlete cap that the IOC insists it wants to maintain, even with the addition of new sports. The only way to add new events/sports and have the same number of athletes is to take quota places away from existing sports. So, they're all directly impacted by the new sports. Because even if you have just a men's and women's event with 20 competitors each in those four sports, that's still 160 athletes (at a minimum). Which means you're taking 160 athletes away from other sports.
And how do you think golf and rugby must feel? They go through this rigorous process that required years of trying and multiple attempts before finally getting (deserved) Olympic inclusion in Rio. Only to see the process totally overhauled where all a sport needs to do is be popular in the host country of a given Games. Which, frankly, isn't fair to those that have been fighting for inclusion for so long, only to be rejected over and over again (seriously, what does squash have to do?).
After the addition of golf and rugby, they completely changed their own rules (which, granted, is their prerogative). Instead of a sport-based program, Tokyo will be the first Olympics to feature an event-based program. As a result, we have the five additional sports, bringing the total to a record 33, and a record 339 events. (Apparently the irony is lost on them that at a time they're having trouble finding bidders because of rising costs, the added sports will result in the largest Olympics ever.)
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that these sports will even stay on the program. Sport climbing, surfing and skateboarding all retained their places for Paris 2024, but karate (which is an unnecessary addition in the first place) will be a one-and-done, and baseball/softball, after fighting 12 years to get back in, will return to the Olympics for one edition before being skipped again, even though you know they'll be back again in LA.
Tokyo didn't have the same restriction on working the new sports into the 10,500-athlete limit that Paris does. Which left virtually no room to add a team sport. So baseball and softball were screwed before the process even started. They aren't popular sports in France to begin with. Then that artificial athlete cap essentially sealed their fate. Because they're not allotting 150 athletes (and taking them away from other sports) to a sport that will only award one gold medal!
That's my biggest problem with the "event-based" program that has resulted in the addition of these sports. Either a sport is part of the Olympics or it's not. All of this back-and-forth, on-and-off doesn't benefit either the sport or the Olympics.
Which is why I preferred the old process. Deciding what sports are on the Olympic program should be up to the IOC. Not the organizers of the individual Games. Because the IOC knows what sports will provide the most benefit to the Olympic movement as a whole. I'm not a fan of their arbitrary (and now gone) 28-sport limit. But they shouldn't be adding and removing sports on a whim, either.
There's a massive difference between being an Olympic sport and not being an Olympic sport. That's why so many sports on the outside are desperate to get in. And that's why the competition is intense when there's an available spot (or two). Yet, by letting the host countries (who may have their own motivations) decide, they're dangling that carrot, only to potentially pull it away and make them do the whole thing all over again.
This isn't even about the sports that Paris selected. Although, that is a part of it. The Olympics got along for decades long before the X Games even existed. And, for much of its history, the X Games and fans of extreme sports took great pride in the fact that they were considered "alternative." Olympic recognition, while it would legitimize them, goes almost completely against that "alternative" culture.
As much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise, they don't need each other, either. They draw two completely different audiences. People who watch the X Games aren't going to watch the Olympics and vice versa. Combining the two isn't going to change that. In fact, it could very well end up having the opposite effect. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
All of this is in a blantant attempt to make the Olympics "more relevant to youth." And apparently they were successful in that objective. They did a survey right after the announcement and 79 percent of French people approved of the new sports, with that jumping to 89 percent favorable among 15-25 year-olds.
It was rumored that they'd also be proposing e "sports," but that seems to be off the table for now. At least as a medal event. Although, they're evidently planning on having some sort of offshore racing event in sailing, which would include some interactive elements. And sailing isn't the only sport to have that idea, either. Word is they're considering it in rowing and cycling, too.
The IOC has been obsessed with appealing to younger generations for a while now. That's why they created the Youth Olympics, the beast which unleashed break dancing on the world in the first place. Break dancing (or "breaking") was one of the most popular sports at the 2018 Youth Olympics in Buenos Aires. And evidently that's all you need to be included in the regular Olympics now.
I'd like to see the results of that same survey among fans/viewers of the traditional Olympic sports. Because that's the risk the IOC runs by adding all of these X Games sports to the Olympics. You want more youth to watch, but they aren't your core audience. And you risk alienating your core audience by catering to younger fans/athletes at their expense.
Not to mention the federations of the 26 core Olympic sports, who the IOC is basically telling, "We don't care about you." They're so concerned with appealing to youth that the traditional Olympic sports--the ones that are guaranteed places on the program--are forced to play second fiddle to these potential one-off sports that are guaranteed nothing beyond the one Olympics that the host has decided to include them in.
Another thing that can't sit well with the international federations is the 10,500-athlete cap that the IOC insists it wants to maintain, even with the addition of new sports. The only way to add new events/sports and have the same number of athletes is to take quota places away from existing sports. So, they're all directly impacted by the new sports. Because even if you have just a men's and women's event with 20 competitors each in those four sports, that's still 160 athletes (at a minimum). Which means you're taking 160 athletes away from other sports.
And how do you think golf and rugby must feel? They go through this rigorous process that required years of trying and multiple attempts before finally getting (deserved) Olympic inclusion in Rio. Only to see the process totally overhauled where all a sport needs to do is be popular in the host country of a given Games. Which, frankly, isn't fair to those that have been fighting for inclusion for so long, only to be rejected over and over again (seriously, what does squash have to do?).
After the addition of golf and rugby, they completely changed their own rules (which, granted, is their prerogative). Instead of a sport-based program, Tokyo will be the first Olympics to feature an event-based program. As a result, we have the five additional sports, bringing the total to a record 33, and a record 339 events. (Apparently the irony is lost on them that at a time they're having trouble finding bidders because of rising costs, the added sports will result in the largest Olympics ever.)
Meanwhile, there's no guarantee that these sports will even stay on the program. Sport climbing, surfing and skateboarding all retained their places for Paris 2024, but karate (which is an unnecessary addition in the first place) will be a one-and-done, and baseball/softball, after fighting 12 years to get back in, will return to the Olympics for one edition before being skipped again, even though you know they'll be back again in LA.
Tokyo didn't have the same restriction on working the new sports into the 10,500-athlete limit that Paris does. Which left virtually no room to add a team sport. So baseball and softball were screwed before the process even started. They aren't popular sports in France to begin with. Then that artificial athlete cap essentially sealed their fate. Because they're not allotting 150 athletes (and taking them away from other sports) to a sport that will only award one gold medal!
That's my biggest problem with the "event-based" program that has resulted in the addition of these sports. Either a sport is part of the Olympics or it's not. All of this back-and-forth, on-and-off doesn't benefit either the sport or the Olympics.
Which is why I preferred the old process. Deciding what sports are on the Olympic program should be up to the IOC. Not the organizers of the individual Games. Because the IOC knows what sports will provide the most benefit to the Olympic movement as a whole. I'm not a fan of their arbitrary (and now gone) 28-sport limit. But they shouldn't be adding and removing sports on a whim, either.
There's a massive difference between being an Olympic sport and not being an Olympic sport. That's why so many sports on the outside are desperate to get in. And that's why the competition is intense when there's an available spot (or two). Yet, by letting the host countries (who may have their own motivations) decide, they're dangling that carrot, only to potentially pull it away and make them do the whole thing all over again.
This isn't even about the sports that Paris selected. Although, that is a part of it. The Olympics got along for decades long before the X Games even existed. And, for much of its history, the X Games and fans of extreme sports took great pride in the fact that they were considered "alternative." Olympic recognition, while it would legitimize them, goes almost completely against that "alternative" culture.
As much as they might try to convince themselves otherwise, they don't need each other, either. They draw two completely different audiences. People who watch the X Games aren't going to watch the Olympics and vice versa. Combining the two isn't going to change that. In fact, it could very well end up having the opposite effect. Which doesn't benefit anybody.
Sunday, February 24, 2019
Sporting Oscars
As I sit here watching the Oscars, it makes me think of all the great sports movies out there. Only a handful of sports movies have actually won Oscars (including three Best Pictures), but there are so many others that are rewarded with nothing more than cult status. So, I decided to have some fun and present my own Sports Oscars.
I don't have awards for things like acting or directing or writing. Rather, my I'm putting baseball movies against baseball movies, football movies against football movies, etc. The only exception is the documentary category.
Documentary: O.J. Made In America-There have been some really great sports documentaries that have won Oscars. When We Were Kings and One Day In September were both extraordinary. But they pale in comparison to O.J. Made In America. An exquisite piece of film making, it packs a lot into five parts and 10 hours. And I don't think there's a single moment during those 10 hours that drags. Every award it received was well-deserved.
Baseball Drama: Eight Men Out-The baseball movie is a cinematic staple, so I'm dividing it into two categories (I could even do three if I wanted to have a Kevin Costner baseball movie subcategory). And for Drama, I'm going with what's still one of my favorite all-time movies. The true story of the 1919 Black Sox throwing the World Series. What I love so much about this movie is how it succeeds in putting the players (at least some of them) in a sympathetic light, even if their actions were reprehensible.
Baseball Comedy: A League of Their Own-This was a tight battle with Bull Durham and Major League. But A League of Their Own gets the nod here. This movie was originally intended to be a tribute to the women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. It's turned into a beloved classic full of oft-repeated Tom Hanks one-liners.
Basketball: Hoosiers-Is there really any other choice? There have been some other quality basketball pictures through the years (Glory Road and The Basketball Diaries come to mind), but none are on the level of Hoosiers. It's the standard by which all basketball movies are measured for a reason.
Boxing: Raging Bull-Both Rocky and Million Dollar Baby both won Best Picture, but I'd argue that Raging Bull was the superior film of the three. DeNiro won Best Actor for his portrayal of Jake LaMotta in the signature role of his career. Rocky is great and has spawned a franchise that is now eight movies strong (and counting). But Raging Bull is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made, and it's hard to disagree.
Football: Remember the Titans-Another sport that can be divided into subcategories. It could be drama/comedy. It could be college/high school/pro. But I decided to just stick with one category. And my choice in the football category is Remember the Titans. There are plenty of other worthwhile football selections going all the way back to Knute Rockne: All-American. I'm partial to Remember the Titans, though.
Golf: Caddyshack-Three great golf comedies. Any one of them could've been selected here. And you wouldn't be wrong to go with Happy Gilmore or Tin Cup. Neither one of them is Caddyshack, though. That was the original. And just take a second to think about that cast full of comedy legends. All in an incredibly stupid movie with such a dumb premise. Which is what makes it great. Cinderella Story!
Hockey: Miracle-Like Hoosiers, this one is a no-brainer. In any list of the greatest sports movies ever across all sports and all genres, Miracle is right there at the top. Everything about this movie is perfect. The casting they got exactly right. They told a true story with nearly every detail historically accurate. And they captured the emotion that everyone felt in that moment. Which, by the way, is one of the greatest moments in American sports history.
Horse Racing: Seabiscuit-Pardon the pun, but this one is really a two-horse race. Which is funny, because Seabiscuit and Secreteriat came out right around the same time. Secreteriat gets the sappy Disney treatment, though, so that brings it down a notch. Seabiscuit is the better picture regardless. That's why it got a Best Picture nomination, which, as we've already established, is rare for a sports movie.
Olympics: Chariots of Fire-An Olympic movie is tough. Which is why there haven't been many great ones over the years. Race has recently entered the conversation, but Chariots of Fire is still the gold standard in the genre. It was just the second sports movie after Rocky to win Best Picture. This movie has its critics (there are plenty of people who hate it and think it's boring), but there are plenty of others who think it's a masterpiece. Put me in that category. Plus, that iconic music.
Auto Racing: Days of Thunder-Let's be honest, most movies featuring auto racing are really stupid, not very good, or both. Take all 35 Fast and the Furious movies, for example. Days of Thunder is neither of those things, So, it rises to the top of what is really a pretty shallow candidate pool. It gets bonus points for being the only good Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman movie, and more bonus point for bringing NASCAR into the mainstream.
International Sports: Invictus-Bringing it full circle to the documentary thing, we have Invictus, a movie that you'd be forgiven for thinking IS a documentary. It's the story of Nelson Mandela, aka Morgan Freeman, and his role in using the 1995 Rugby World Cup to unite black and white South Africans. It's so much more than just a sports movie. And it sends a beautiful message about how sports can bring people together.
Note that there are several sports missing from this list. There's a reason for that. Can you name a tennis movie or a soccer movie? Any tennis or soccer movie! It doesn't need to be good. Wimbledon. That's all I've got. So, there's still plenty of room for a filmmaker who wants to do a sports movie to make his mark on the genre.
I don't have awards for things like acting or directing or writing. Rather, my I'm putting baseball movies against baseball movies, football movies against football movies, etc. The only exception is the documentary category.
Documentary: O.J. Made In America-There have been some really great sports documentaries that have won Oscars. When We Were Kings and One Day In September were both extraordinary. But they pale in comparison to O.J. Made In America. An exquisite piece of film making, it packs a lot into five parts and 10 hours. And I don't think there's a single moment during those 10 hours that drags. Every award it received was well-deserved.
Baseball Drama: Eight Men Out-The baseball movie is a cinematic staple, so I'm dividing it into two categories (I could even do three if I wanted to have a Kevin Costner baseball movie subcategory). And for Drama, I'm going with what's still one of my favorite all-time movies. The true story of the 1919 Black Sox throwing the World Series. What I love so much about this movie is how it succeeds in putting the players (at least some of them) in a sympathetic light, even if their actions were reprehensible.
Baseball Comedy: A League of Their Own-This was a tight battle with Bull Durham and Major League. But A League of Their Own gets the nod here. This movie was originally intended to be a tribute to the women who played in the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League. It's turned into a beloved classic full of oft-repeated Tom Hanks one-liners.
Basketball: Hoosiers-Is there really any other choice? There have been some other quality basketball pictures through the years (Glory Road and The Basketball Diaries come to mind), but none are on the level of Hoosiers. It's the standard by which all basketball movies are measured for a reason.
Boxing: Raging Bull-Both Rocky and Million Dollar Baby both won Best Picture, but I'd argue that Raging Bull was the superior film of the three. DeNiro won Best Actor for his portrayal of Jake LaMotta in the signature role of his career. Rocky is great and has spawned a franchise that is now eight movies strong (and counting). But Raging Bull is widely considered one of the greatest films ever made, and it's hard to disagree.
Football: Remember the Titans-Another sport that can be divided into subcategories. It could be drama/comedy. It could be college/high school/pro. But I decided to just stick with one category. And my choice in the football category is Remember the Titans. There are plenty of other worthwhile football selections going all the way back to Knute Rockne: All-American. I'm partial to Remember the Titans, though.
Golf: Caddyshack-Three great golf comedies. Any one of them could've been selected here. And you wouldn't be wrong to go with Happy Gilmore or Tin Cup. Neither one of them is Caddyshack, though. That was the original. And just take a second to think about that cast full of comedy legends. All in an incredibly stupid movie with such a dumb premise. Which is what makes it great. Cinderella Story!
Hockey: Miracle-Like Hoosiers, this one is a no-brainer. In any list of the greatest sports movies ever across all sports and all genres, Miracle is right there at the top. Everything about this movie is perfect. The casting they got exactly right. They told a true story with nearly every detail historically accurate. And they captured the emotion that everyone felt in that moment. Which, by the way, is one of the greatest moments in American sports history.
Horse Racing: Seabiscuit-Pardon the pun, but this one is really a two-horse race. Which is funny, because Seabiscuit and Secreteriat came out right around the same time. Secreteriat gets the sappy Disney treatment, though, so that brings it down a notch. Seabiscuit is the better picture regardless. That's why it got a Best Picture nomination, which, as we've already established, is rare for a sports movie.
Olympics: Chariots of Fire-An Olympic movie is tough. Which is why there haven't been many great ones over the years. Race has recently entered the conversation, but Chariots of Fire is still the gold standard in the genre. It was just the second sports movie after Rocky to win Best Picture. This movie has its critics (there are plenty of people who hate it and think it's boring), but there are plenty of others who think it's a masterpiece. Put me in that category. Plus, that iconic music.
Auto Racing: Days of Thunder-Let's be honest, most movies featuring auto racing are really stupid, not very good, or both. Take all 35 Fast and the Furious movies, for example. Days of Thunder is neither of those things, So, it rises to the top of what is really a pretty shallow candidate pool. It gets bonus points for being the only good Tom Cruise & Nicole Kidman movie, and more bonus point for bringing NASCAR into the mainstream.
International Sports: Invictus-Bringing it full circle to the documentary thing, we have Invictus, a movie that you'd be forgiven for thinking IS a documentary. It's the story of Nelson Mandela, aka Morgan Freeman, and his role in using the 1995 Rugby World Cup to unite black and white South Africans. It's so much more than just a sports movie. And it sends a beautiful message about how sports can bring people together.
Note that there are several sports missing from this list. There's a reason for that. Can you name a tennis movie or a soccer movie? Any tennis or soccer movie! It doesn't need to be good. Wimbledon. That's all I've got. So, there's still plenty of room for a filmmaker who wants to do a sports movie to make his mark on the genre.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Setting the Yankees' Opening Day Roster
Spring Training is here! Even though more than 100 free agents (including Bryce Harper) remain unsigned, every player that is on a team has reported to camp, and Spring Training games get started over the weekend.
With so many big names still out there, it's nearly impossible to predict what teams' Opening Day rosters are going to look like. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna give it a try anyway.
Brian Cashman said about a month ago that the Yankees weren't going to make anymore major moves and that the roster was pretty much set. You can never say never with this team, though. They were linked with Machado right up until he finally inked that 10-year, $300 million deal with the Padres, and the Harper talk will continue until he signs somewhere. Even Aaron Judge has said that if the Yankees were to sign Harper, they'd make the outfield situation work (and they could badly use his lefty bat in a heavily right-handed lineup).
But, assuming Cashman's statement was accurate (and, barring an injury, there's no reason to think otherwise), there are only a handful of Opening Day roster spots that aren't already accounted for. I could be way off, of course, but the way I see it, we already know 22 of the 25 players who'll be wearing Yankee pinstripes on Opening Day against Baltimore. The rotation and catcher are set, with one spot available in the bullpen, the outfield and the infield.
As the Red Sox made abundantly clear in the Division Series, the Yankees needed to upgrade their starting rotation. And Cashman did that by trading for James Paxton and re-signing J.A. Happ for two years. Now, Paxton really only had half of one season in Seattle, and there's no guarantee Happ will replicate what he did after he was traded to the Yankees at the deadline last season. But, a rotation of Severino, Paxton, Tanaka, Happ and Sabathia is definitely better than last year's Opening Day rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Sabathia, Gray and Montgomery.
The starters don't need to go much beyond six innings on this team anyway. Because the bullpen (while often overused) is the best in baseball. And it only got better with the addition of Adam Ottavino. They have three guys who could be closers, which doesn't even include their actual closer Aroldis Chapman. So, they could use any combination of Ottavino, Green, Britton and Betances to get to Chapman.
Aaron Boone likes to carry 12 pitchers, which gives him a seven-man bullpen. Chapman will close. Betances, Britton, Ottavino, Green and Jonathan Holder will occupy five of the other six spots. But who fills that seventh will perhaps be the most interesting Yankees position battle of the spring.
Tommy Kahnle spent most of 2018 in Scranton, but was lights out after they got him in 2017. He's already on the 40-man roster, so if he has a good spring, you'd have to figure he's a good bet to make the team. If he doesn't, don't be surprised to see Kahnle released so that he can sign somewhere else. Stephen Tarpley, meanwhile, made the playoff roster, and would give Boone a situational lefty that he otherwise wouldn't have (I don't expect them to ask Britton to fill that role).
Then there's Luis Cessa. On paper, he looks like a longshot to make the team. After all, he's a starter and would only be on the roster as the long man. BUT...he's out of Minor League options, so he either has to make the team or be designated for assignment. And you can bet a bunch of teams would be ready to pounce if Cessa became available. So, that's a decision Cashman and Boone will have to weigh.
Which says nothing about non-roster invitee Danny Farquhar, which would be a remarkable story. He pitched in eight games for the White Sox last season before suffering a brain aneurysm when he was hit by a comebacker in late April. The fact that he's back on the mound less than a year later is amazing. My bet is he starts the year in Scranton, but he definitely seems like a candidate to get called up at some point during the season. And the reaction he gets when he does will be incredible.
Sanchez and Romine are the catchers. If one of them gets hurt during Spring Training, the other will start and Kyle Higashioka will be the backup. No controversy there at all.
Troy Tulowitzi was signed to play shortstop while Didi Gregorius recovers from Tommy John surgery. That's quite a risk, considering Tulo hasn't played in a Major League game since 2017. But, if he can't go or struggles, Gleyber Torres can always move over to shortstop. In which case, DJ LeMahieu, who was signed to basically fill the Neil Walker role, will be inserted as the starting second baseman.
Had the Yankees signed Machado, he probably would've played third, with Miguel Andujar moving across the diamond (which seems inevitable at some point). Andujar isn't a good defensive third baseman. But he also needs to play there to keep his bat in the lineup, so there's no dispute over who'll man the hot corner.
First base is a little bit of a concern, though. Luke Voit caught lightning in a bottle last season, to the point that he was the only first baseman on the roster in the playoffs. I'm worried the rest of the league has caught up to him. Voit rightfully enters Spring Training as the starter, though. Mainly because Greg Bird sucks. If Bird actually makes it through Spring Training without hurting himself (a big IF), I'm not 100 percent sure he makes the team. He strikes out all the time and can only play first base. And does a left-handed hitting backup first baseman really bring a team that much value? You do need a backup first baseman, though, and none of the other candidates (Tyler Wade) have any experience there.
There's no question about who's starting in the outfield. Aaron Hicks will play center, Aaron Judge will be in right and Giancarlo Stanton will DH. Brett Gardner was relegated to the bench in the playoffs last season, be he re-signed for one year and, assuming they don't become a surprise player in the Harper sweepstakes, will be back in left field. More importantly, Gardner is the only left-handed hitter in the lineup until Didi gets back (Hicks is a switch-hitter).
Clint Frazier has publicly said that he plans on challenging Gardner for the left field job, but the incumbent should have the edge for the reason I just mentioned. Frazier will battle Jacoby Ellsbury for the backup outfield spot. Ellsbury is still being paid an awful lot of money, and the Yankees would love to rid themselves of that contract. However, he has a full no-trade clause, so he's difficult to move. They've been trying for two years. Assuming Ellsbury is healthy, that prohibitive contract should make him the favorite to snag the other outfield spot.
So, barring anything unforeseen happening during the spring, this is what I envision for the Yankees' roster on Opening Day:
Starting Pitchers: Luis Severino, James Paxton, Masahiro Tanaka, JA Happ, CC Sabathia
Bullpen: Aroldis Chapman, Dellin Betances, Zack Britton, Adam Ottavino, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle
Catcher: Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine
Infield: Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Troy Tulowitzki, Miguel Andujar, DJ LeMahieu, Greg Bird
Outfield: Brett Gardner, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Jacoby Ellsbury
With so many big names still out there, it's nearly impossible to predict what teams' Opening Day rosters are going to look like. But that doesn't mean I'm not gonna give it a try anyway.
Brian Cashman said about a month ago that the Yankees weren't going to make anymore major moves and that the roster was pretty much set. You can never say never with this team, though. They were linked with Machado right up until he finally inked that 10-year, $300 million deal with the Padres, and the Harper talk will continue until he signs somewhere. Even Aaron Judge has said that if the Yankees were to sign Harper, they'd make the outfield situation work (and they could badly use his lefty bat in a heavily right-handed lineup).
But, assuming Cashman's statement was accurate (and, barring an injury, there's no reason to think otherwise), there are only a handful of Opening Day roster spots that aren't already accounted for. I could be way off, of course, but the way I see it, we already know 22 of the 25 players who'll be wearing Yankee pinstripes on Opening Day against Baltimore. The rotation and catcher are set, with one spot available in the bullpen, the outfield and the infield.
As the Red Sox made abundantly clear in the Division Series, the Yankees needed to upgrade their starting rotation. And Cashman did that by trading for James Paxton and re-signing J.A. Happ for two years. Now, Paxton really only had half of one season in Seattle, and there's no guarantee Happ will replicate what he did after he was traded to the Yankees at the deadline last season. But, a rotation of Severino, Paxton, Tanaka, Happ and Sabathia is definitely better than last year's Opening Day rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Sabathia, Gray and Montgomery.
The starters don't need to go much beyond six innings on this team anyway. Because the bullpen (while often overused) is the best in baseball. And it only got better with the addition of Adam Ottavino. They have three guys who could be closers, which doesn't even include their actual closer Aroldis Chapman. So, they could use any combination of Ottavino, Green, Britton and Betances to get to Chapman.
Aaron Boone likes to carry 12 pitchers, which gives him a seven-man bullpen. Chapman will close. Betances, Britton, Ottavino, Green and Jonathan Holder will occupy five of the other six spots. But who fills that seventh will perhaps be the most interesting Yankees position battle of the spring.
Tommy Kahnle spent most of 2018 in Scranton, but was lights out after they got him in 2017. He's already on the 40-man roster, so if he has a good spring, you'd have to figure he's a good bet to make the team. If he doesn't, don't be surprised to see Kahnle released so that he can sign somewhere else. Stephen Tarpley, meanwhile, made the playoff roster, and would give Boone a situational lefty that he otherwise wouldn't have (I don't expect them to ask Britton to fill that role).
Then there's Luis Cessa. On paper, he looks like a longshot to make the team. After all, he's a starter and would only be on the roster as the long man. BUT...he's out of Minor League options, so he either has to make the team or be designated for assignment. And you can bet a bunch of teams would be ready to pounce if Cessa became available. So, that's a decision Cashman and Boone will have to weigh.
Which says nothing about non-roster invitee Danny Farquhar, which would be a remarkable story. He pitched in eight games for the White Sox last season before suffering a brain aneurysm when he was hit by a comebacker in late April. The fact that he's back on the mound less than a year later is amazing. My bet is he starts the year in Scranton, but he definitely seems like a candidate to get called up at some point during the season. And the reaction he gets when he does will be incredible.
Sanchez and Romine are the catchers. If one of them gets hurt during Spring Training, the other will start and Kyle Higashioka will be the backup. No controversy there at all.
Troy Tulowitzi was signed to play shortstop while Didi Gregorius recovers from Tommy John surgery. That's quite a risk, considering Tulo hasn't played in a Major League game since 2017. But, if he can't go or struggles, Gleyber Torres can always move over to shortstop. In which case, DJ LeMahieu, who was signed to basically fill the Neil Walker role, will be inserted as the starting second baseman.
Had the Yankees signed Machado, he probably would've played third, with Miguel Andujar moving across the diamond (which seems inevitable at some point). Andujar isn't a good defensive third baseman. But he also needs to play there to keep his bat in the lineup, so there's no dispute over who'll man the hot corner.
First base is a little bit of a concern, though. Luke Voit caught lightning in a bottle last season, to the point that he was the only first baseman on the roster in the playoffs. I'm worried the rest of the league has caught up to him. Voit rightfully enters Spring Training as the starter, though. Mainly because Greg Bird sucks. If Bird actually makes it through Spring Training without hurting himself (a big IF), I'm not 100 percent sure he makes the team. He strikes out all the time and can only play first base. And does a left-handed hitting backup first baseman really bring a team that much value? You do need a backup first baseman, though, and none of the other candidates (Tyler Wade) have any experience there.
There's no question about who's starting in the outfield. Aaron Hicks will play center, Aaron Judge will be in right and Giancarlo Stanton will DH. Brett Gardner was relegated to the bench in the playoffs last season, be he re-signed for one year and, assuming they don't become a surprise player in the Harper sweepstakes, will be back in left field. More importantly, Gardner is the only left-handed hitter in the lineup until Didi gets back (Hicks is a switch-hitter).
Clint Frazier has publicly said that he plans on challenging Gardner for the left field job, but the incumbent should have the edge for the reason I just mentioned. Frazier will battle Jacoby Ellsbury for the backup outfield spot. Ellsbury is still being paid an awful lot of money, and the Yankees would love to rid themselves of that contract. However, he has a full no-trade clause, so he's difficult to move. They've been trying for two years. Assuming Ellsbury is healthy, that prohibitive contract should make him the favorite to snag the other outfield spot.
So, barring anything unforeseen happening during the spring, this is what I envision for the Yankees' roster on Opening Day:
Starting Pitchers: Luis Severino, James Paxton, Masahiro Tanaka, JA Happ, CC Sabathia
Bullpen: Aroldis Chapman, Dellin Betances, Zack Britton, Adam Ottavino, Chad Green, Jonathan Holder, Tommy Kahnle
Catcher: Gary Sanchez, Austin Romine
Infield: Luke Voit, Gleyber Torres, Troy Tulowitzki, Miguel Andujar, DJ LeMahieu, Greg Bird
Outfield: Brett Gardner, Aaron Hicks, Aaron Judge, Giancarlo Stanton, Jacoby Ellsbury
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)