Hank Steinbrenner: Just Shut Your Mouth Already

Hank Steinbrenner the new managing owner of the Yankees is running his mouth yet again. After already saying the Red Sox Nation was B.S., giving deadlines for the Santana deal and saying the Yankees wouldn’t sign A-Rod (and then did) Hank Steinbrenner has taken the cake recently. He said he wants Joba in the starting rotation and only an idiot would want him in the setup role. Additionally he mentioned 5 starters he wanted on the team going forward and one of them was not Mike Mussina who is currently in the rotation.

Previously I haven’t minded his comments and proclamation. Granted he’s probably hurt the Yankees bargaining position in certain situations, I figured as long as he keeps writing the checks like his father did it would be ok.

Now I’m going to not so politely have to tell him to Shut his Facking Mouth. First in saying he never liked them moving him to the pen last year he’s ignoring the fact that if they did not, there’s little to no chance they make the playoffs last year. Granted they didn’t get past the first round last year, however without a bad case of the bugs who knows how that series could have turned. My point is last year it was clearly a smart decision to move Joba to the bullpen.

Now I understand he’s probably been watching Bronx is Burning and wants to be like his dad when George told Billy Martin to hit Reggie Jackson fourth, but it’s possible to own a successful team without being an idiot.

Here’s a few reasons why Hanks comments are so dumb.

1) With his recent statements in one foul swoop you’ve alienated one of your starting pitchers, your GM and your manager.

1a) Mussina hasn’t been that bad, aside from his last start he’s pitched at least 5 2/3 every other start and not given up more than 4 runs in all of them

1b) Your general manager is the one who drafted Joba in the bloody first place

1c) Your manager is less than 20 games in, is there really a need to castrate him already and make him face constant questions?

2) His baseball people (you know the ones that actually know the game) think Joba should only pitch about 150 innings this year and if he went through 30+ healthy starts he would be way over that by the end of the season, lets just throw him out there anyway.

3) The Yankees really have no proven setup guy if Joba is moved to the rotation. Number one starters are more important than setup guys, but between Rivera in 96 and Nelson, Stanton and Mendoza after that the Yankees haven’t won a W.S. recently without a very solid setup crew.

4) We’ve never seen Joba as a major league starter. Is he doing to be as dominant throwing 94 instead of 97, and having to work in curveballs and changeups?

5) One of his reasons for thinking Joba needs to be in the rotation is because you don’t keep a guy with a 100 mph fastball as a setup guy. According to Jayson Stark: Joel Zumaya, Justin Verlander, Joba, Matt Lindstrom, Ubaldo Jimenez, Jonathan Broxton and A.J. Burnett. That's the list of all pitchers who threw at least three pitches last year that were clocked at 100-plus. Not including Joba that’s three starters and 3 relievers. And other than Verlander who has struggled this season, none of them are dominant.

Don’t get me wrong I’m not against moving Joba to the rotation and giving him a shot there, but to call people idiots for thinking its not a bad thing for him to be in the bullpen at this point is, well… idiotic.

Replay in Baseball: Get Your Head Out Your Arse and Use It

On ESPN Jayson Stark is having a chat about whether replay should be used in baseball. To summarize the argument for replay: those in favor of replay would basically like to get calls right. I don’t see any merit in getting calls wrong, so unless there’s a compelling reason not to get the calls right I say use replay.

The arguments against replay are many, but basically well… dumb. One argument is it will slow down the game. People argue that baseball is already a slow game, we can’t be going over to a replay booth to check every close call. That’s a valid, but again stupid argument. Why? Well for two reasons really…

1) no one is arguing we should replay every play. Balls and strikes will always be the umpire’s discretion. Certainly one could argue a system like ques tec or k zone would do a better job, but no one is arguing for it to be used for anything other than an evaluative tool. Some people would argue replay should be used for all close safe-out calls, but I won’t even argue for that. I’m simply arguing that on easy to review calls like whether a ball was fair or foul and whether a ball was trapped or not we can go to an upstairs umpire who probably won’t need more than one look at the play and can radio down with his decision.

2) In addition to it not being used on every play it will not in any significant way slow down the game. What happens when there’s a close play like a fair or foul home run? Often times the umpires will gather together discuss it and may or may not reverse the decision. Based on whether they reverse the decision or not one of the managers will come out there and discuss/yell about it. Let’s say the umpires discuss the call for 1 ½ minutes and then the manager comes out for another 2-5 minutes, that’s somewhere between 3 ½ - 6 ½ minutes for a close call. Instead of that couldn’t we just review the play for 2-3 minutes tops. We could probably have a good 3-4 replays per game in the same time span as one challenged call.

The other argument against replay is it takes out the “human element” of the game. I for one don’t even really know what that means, or why it’s so sacred, but I understand that it’s important for the purists. Again I’ll make a similar argument that there’s still a significant portion of calls (like balls and strikes) that will never be up for replay. So even with the most liberal use of replay there will still be the human element.

But again I question what’s so sacred about the human element? Baseball like every other sport needs to progress over time. They used to have storm drains in centerfield that severely affected the careers of players like Mickey Mantle who got caught up in them and got injured. New technology came along and they no longer need to put storm drains on the field, is anyone upset about that? Let’s go back in time further; they used to wear no gloves at all or if they wore gloves it was barely larger than their hands. Now outfielders wear gloves large enough for a small baby to sleep in. Again, where’s the complaining about that?

Technology is not a bad thing and it’s time for baseball to give it a shot. Lets try it out see where it works and were it doesn’t. I think most people would argue inter-league play and the wild card have been good for baseball and I think they’ll realize if replay is instituted it’s good for the game too.

Could the Nets be Tougher to Fix Than the Knicks?

Previously i wrote about how the Knicks could fix themselves, (basically trade Zach Randolph for expiring contracts and let the rest of their big deals expire). Today I want to focus on my team the Nets. They’re theoretically in better shape then the Knicks, after all this is the first year in awhile they’ve missed the playoffs and even this year they had a better year then the Knicks. However if they want to truly get good it may be tougher than what the Knicks need to do.

Current situation

The Nets currently have Devin Harris, Richard Jefferson and Vince Carter locked up long term. The first two are young and talented, play offense and defense, so having them around is a good thing. On the other hand Vince Carter is old, rarely plays defense and his level of intensity fluctuates from night to night. Now that’s not to say he’s not talented, when he’s playing intense he can score 30+ hand out multiple assists and get double digit rebounds. However, his body at this age is not able to handle that kind of intensity regularly enough to win enough games either that or he just doesn’t give the effort on night in night out basis cause he’s lazy (take your pick).

The Nets also have Marcus Williams, Josh Boone and Sean Williams, three talented young players.

Throw in Bostjan Nochbar and Kristic and the Nets definitely have some talent. Yet they’re not winning.

Changes to the Current Roster

One answer could be to change the coach. I like Frank, but maybe they just need a new voice.

Aside from a coaching change what can the Nets do?

Well first, they need to decide on whether to keep Nachbar or Diop as they’re both free agents. I say keep Nachbar as he will be relatively inexpensive and is a nice role player. As for Diop look to keep him at a reasonable price but realize he’s not a necessity, if he gets big offers like Miki Moore did last year you let him go.

Then look to trade Carter. It won’t happen though as he’ll turn 32 next year and still has three more years left at big money. (15m + per year) Oh and did I mention he gives inconsistent effort on a nightly basis?

'

Draft

So the next move, since they won’t have cap room until after next year, is to look at the draft.

What do the Nets need? Not a PG, SG or SF since they won’t play over Harris/Williams, Carter and RJ. They have Boone and Williams, possibly Diop and Kristic. So do they need a power forward or center? Yeah, they probably could use a dominant scoring post presence but at the ten pick (or wherever they are in the draft) who are they looking at? Some guys in that range they could be looking at include Kevin Love, DeAndre Jordan, Marcus Speights, Darell Arthur and reaching a little bit for Donte Green. Love is not a great athlete so it’s tough to tell how he projects to the NBA. Jordan (8 points 6 boards) is not a dominant inside presences but has talent. Speights put up 15 pts and 8 boards last year, but I’ll admit I don’t know much about him. Arthur often gets lost during games but has a lot of talent. Donte Green intrigues me since he’s 6-10 and can shoot, possibly opening up the lane for drives by Harris Carter and RJ, but can he defend a PF? Probably not.

Lebron

Of course the Nets have been rumored to be looking towards Lebron for the 09/10 season. It makes sense since Jay-z is part owner and the Nets are supposedly moving to Brooklyn. However that may fall through since it’s unclear whether the Nets will have that kind of cap space and as far as I know ground hasn’t been broken in Brooklyn. Does Lebron fit with the Nets? Probably not but who cares if we wants to come you sign him and work everything else out later.

So good luck Thorn, it won’t be easy.

How the Knicks Could Get Good Soon… Enough

The Knicks have been the model of dysfunction as an organization. However they really need to only make one big move to change the direction of the franchise. They’ll need to make a whole bunch of smart moves and good draft choices, but one big move can change the franchises fortune and it’s not all that hard a move to make.

Trade Zach Randolph.

Now i'm not the first to suggest how the knicks can fix themselves so i may not be breaking new ground here. However as i said i think with some patience, some shrewdness and one big move the Knicks can get back on track.

Simply put if the Knicks trade Zach Randolph they will be back on the path to success. Getting rid of the 3 years left on his deal will put the Knicks in position to be under the cap by the summer of 2009. Marbury, and rose come off the cap in 2009, if they can find a trade to get Randolph’s contract off the books by then that’s approximately a total of 41 million coming off the books that summer. This would put the knicks at around 42 million dollars of committed payroll by then. The current salary cap is about 55 million and going up about $2 mil a year. If one assumes the salary cap for summer of 09 is $57 million at least the Knicks could have up to $15 million of free cap space.

Now I’ll start by detailing how they trade Randolph. Well Cleveland could be a taker for Joe Smith, Aaron Snow, and a draft pick. Both are expiring and Randolph fits a need for them. Or maybe GS for Al Harrington and a sign and trade for one to two year for Matt Barnes. How bout even a sign and trade with Miami for Jason Williams and ricky davis (one year contracts for both of them). I’m not saying it will be easy because the league knows he’s a loser, but there are teams he is a fit for.

They would still have David Lee a good rebounder and a great fit as a 6^th man bringing energy off the bench. (Probably not a good enough defender/scorer to be a fulltime starter but definitely worthy of good minutes). They have Jamal Crawford a good combo guard who can get you high teens in points a game. Eddy Curry is a good post presence who despite a complete lack of defensive intensity can score and rebound quite well.

Let’s say the Knicks get Jerryd Bayless in the draft, (a realistic projection based on the draft mock lottery) now you have Bayless at the point, Crawford, and Curry starting. You have balkman or Richardson to play sf, both who can be decent role players and you have Lee coming off the bench with Nate robinson backing up at PG. Your gapping hole is at c with the need for a defensive big man.

Now the Knicks could opt to try to draft one (maybe Thabeet or Robin Lopez falls to them early second round or they trade up for a late first round pick) or just be content with Randolph Morris, Curry and Lee upfront for a year. Or they can try to sign one. This summer they have no cap space. Realistically their options for 09 are limited with not too many talented guys being unrestricted free agents, the following guys are worth looking at who are restricted free agents although it’s unlikely they’ll able to pry any of them away as Indiana, LA, NO, and UT will clearly match offers for their guys:

Marvin Williams (restricted)
Raymond Felton (restricted)
Jason Maxiell (restricted)
Danny Granger (restricted)
Andrew Bynum (restricted)
Hakim Warrick (restricted)
Chris Paul (restricted)
Nate Robinson (restricted)
David Lee (restricted)
Channing Frye (restricted)
Francisco "Paco" Garcia (restricted)
Deron Williams (restricted)

So the smart move is to wait till 2010 where the following players can be unrestricted free agents (ignoring guys like Shaq and Ben Wallace who will both be about 80 at the time) :

Joe Johnson
Ray Allen
LeBron James
Dirk Nowitzki

Josh Howard
Marcus Camby
Rip Hamilton
Stephen Jackson
Tracy McGrady
Dwyane Wade
Michael Redd
Tyson Chandler
Eddy Curry
Amare Stoudemire
Brad Miller
Manu Ginobili
Chris Bosh

Lets say you can’t get Lebron because he goes to Brooklyn and D-Wade wants to stay in Miami well Imagine Chris Bosh or Josh Howard being inserted in that lineup. Or how bout Tyson Chandler in there? So now you have Tyson Chandler and Eddy Curry, Balkman/Q, Crawford and Bayless. I think you’ve got yourself a team now. If Lebron does sign in NY which is still a possibility given the lack of progress in Brooklyn then to borrow from Steven A… quite frankly you’ve got all you need.

NFL Mock Drafts Are a Waste of Time

Our country is addicted to the NFL. Despite a total of 21 weeks of meaningful games and only one game at most each week for your team you probably follow the game the entire year round. You probably follow the combine and you probably follow free agency etc. That’s all in good fun but when you take the time to do your own mock draft you’re wasting your time and more importantly you’re wasting mine.

Now i don't think all mock drafts are a waste of time. Mock drafts by professionals and mock drafts in the NBA are interesting. Yet I think NFL ones are a waste of time… so why the difference? Well let’s take a look at the talent pools which the nfl and NBA are coming from. NBA players are coming from 12 person college teams, where generally there aren’t more then 1-2 NBA players on that team and if there are then their team is on tv constantly (like a UNC for example). On the other hand The NFL is taking players from 50+ person teams where there could be up to 5 or more guys taken from that team.

Then let’s think about watching the games. Let’s say Joakim Noah is a top prospect and you’re watching Florida play it’s relatively easy to see what he’s doing on the court. Even if he’s not directly involved in the play it’s easy enough to see if he set a pick, how he's spacing the floor etc. Now let’s think about an offensive tackle or a defensive back. Are you really paying attention to what the left tackle is doing every play? If a cornerback is not being thrown at is that because of his coverage or are they getting more help from the safety so the qb is going to the other side?

Now if you’re Todd Mcshay and you have access to all the game footage from all the games and multiple views of it you can get a pretty good view of what the guy can do. How many of us have that kind of access? You might say, sure we don’t have all that extra video but we still can see the combine and we can still see what the scouts are saying and form our own opinions. Why shouldn’t we take all that, take look at team needs and go from there?

Well because quite frankly it’s useless. Should the Dolphins take Matt Ryan with the number one pick? Well I’ve never really seen Joe Flaco play, so should I tell them to take Matt Ryan with the number one pick when I don’t know whether taking Flaco in the second round could be a better value? Are you prepared to even look at the second round to see if they need to pick a certain Ryan that high?

One of the most valuable players on the Giants this season was a defensive end out of Troy that they took in the fourth round. You might have heard of Osi now, but I can’t imagine you did out of college. Yet you might have wanted the Giants to take a defensive end in the first round that year not knowing they were gonna take Osi in the fourth round.

To put it another way… people who do mock drafts are the same people who boo Donovan Mcnabb on draft day because they wanted Ricky Williams.

So enjoy your mock draft, but unless its your job, I’m not interested.