Thursday, January 31, 2008

I know it has been a while since I posted, but life keeps getting in the way. In order for me to afford to get online I have to have gainful employment. Said gainful employment has been kicking my proverbial ass lately. Ass trumps blog.

Anyway, I do have some thoughts os the new Ravens coach, and I will try to expound on them no later than next week. But right now I need to comment on the Orioles, Erik Bedard, and the trade.

According to ESPN the Bedard trade between the Orioles and the Seattle Mariners might finally go through later this week, possibly as soon as Friday. The question that everyone has had is what was the hold up? As recently as a couple of days ago we were told that the trade was all but done, and that two of the prospects that Baltimore was supposed to get were pulled from what they were doing (one was playing winter ball in the Dominican) and told that they had to go get physicals so that the trade could be finalized. The next thing you know, the trade is still not finalized and both sides are claiming that a deal was still under consideration but nothing had been finalized. Well that is all well and good, but if the deal wasn't about to happen, why would the Mariners pull one of their players from winter league ball? The only reason anyone could find would be so that they don't get injured and cause the trade to be dropped.

Immediately speculation turned to Orioles owner Peter Angelos, and that he might have nixed the trade like he has done in the past (in 1996 when Pat Gillick wanted to trade Bobby Bonilla and David Wells, and as recently as this past season when he overruled a trade of Brian Roberts to Atlanta). The thing is, we as fans had been assured that Angelos told Andy McPhail (a very respected baseball man who led one team to 2 World Series championships and another within 5 outs of making the World Series for the first time since WWII) that McPhail would have complete autonomy to do what was best for the team. When Andy McPhail came to Baltimore last season, a lot of heads in baseball turned, and people started thinking that maybe Angelos had learned his lesson and that he was going to let people with baseball acumen make baseball decisions. Now everyone knew that it wasn't the case and that Angelos was meddling again, and McPhail should quit because he would never be able to rebuild this team as long as Angelos owned them...

There is one basic problem though. McPhail came out and said that Angelos had not interfered. McPhail has always been known as a straight shooter who doesn't spin fanciful tales to the media or fans. He might keep things a little too close to the vest for some people, but holding info until you are sure it is correct is not a bad thing. So McPhail sys that Angelos is not the reason that the trade isn't happening. How do the fans react? Read the comments from the last link and see for yourself. They keep saying "McPhail is lying! It HAS to be Angelos' fault!!!". Well, according to the ESPN article, that isn't the case. It is really about the legal issues that sprang from the comments of one of the players involved in the trade. One of the Mariners, to be exact. It seems that due to the comments made, there was a potential problem. In case you don't feel like reading the ESPN article, here is the passage in question...

When Jones was quoted as saying the deal was completed, this created a rules question, sources say: If the Jones went for his physical examination, would the Orioles then be beholden to accept him, even if the physical exam did not go well.

The Orioles have asked the Mariners for written language that Seattle will submit Jones and Sherrill for a physical examination by the Orioles -- and if they pass physicals, then and only then will Baltimore be obligated to finish the trade. The inherent risk for the Mariners is that if either Jones or Sherrill were to flunk their physicals in Baltimore, then the respective value of the players would be diminished within the industry.
This becomes MORE problematic when THIS is factored in (courtesy of www.baltimoreorioles.com and www.mlb.com)
Apparently after agreeing in principle to the deal, the Orioles heard something about Jones having a potential health problem -- a degenerative hip (osteoarthritis) similar to the ailment that ended Albert Belle's career in 2000, just two years into the five-year, $65 million contract he signed with the Orioles.

The medical report on Jones was unsubstantiated and Mariners trainer Rick Griffin told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on Tuesday that he couldn't talk about the situation because of HIPPA regulations. General manager Bill Bavasi said: "All I can tell you is that we brought Adam Jones home from Venezuela. Beyond that, we're not saying anything."
So as long as the Mariners agree to cover the mistake that Jones caused when he spoke out of turn, here is no problem. If they refuse, then there is always the chance that they are aware of problems with these (or other) players, in which case the Orioles shouldn't make the trade anyway. But the fans have to immediately jump to the wrong conclusions, which fans have done since the beginning of fandom. However, now that the internet is here, these opinions have gone from bars and watercoolers to in the face of everyone who cares to see it, and in fact we are overwhelmed by it. This is why I try to wait a bit before commenting on anything. I might not have the scoop, but I try to have a more balanced look at the whole picture.
And that leads me to the whole Orioles rebuilding project. Miguel Tejada is gone. Bedard is all but gone. Brian Roberts appears to be heading quickly out the door behind them. Reaction has been mixed, both to the returns for the departed players and the need for / wisdom of their departure. Now for my opinion...
The Orioles need to start over if they want any chance to ever compete with the Yankees and Red Sox. The fact is that with the star players that they do have, they have been a consistent 90+ loss team for a decade. They are not going to win consistently with these guys playing, because they don't have enough around them to do so. So the smart thing to do is to trade them for prospects that might come up in the next 2-3 years (when these guys would be leaving as free agents) and do something. Any time you can add 3 or 4 potential pieces for the future at the cost of 1 piece now that, while it hurts to lose it, it will hurt just as much to have it for 3 years and not have it do anything for you. AQs far as I am concerned, the untouchable pieces of the Orioles are Nick Markakis, Adam Loewen, and Matt Weiters (the minor league catcher they drafted last year). The Orioles have control over them for longer than 3 years, and they have a lot of potential (Markakis is a borderline All Star as it stands today, and if Bedard and Roberts ARE traded, and with Tejada gone and Melvin Mora not the player he was a couple of years ago, there is a good chance he will be the All Star representative for the Orioles in 2008). And if in 3 years the team is not moving enough in the right direction, they can also be traded for more prospects. Once you have a nucleus of solid players (read: more than 2 or 3 out of 25), THEN you go after free agents to fill a weakness. Free agency is not how you build a team (and yes, I am looking at the Yankees right now. They win enough in the regular season, but they have fallen apart in the postseason the last 7 years. Is that just a coincidence? I don't think so). So I am all for tading Bedard, Roberts, Mora, Huff, Payton, Gibbons...basically anyone on the team besides Markakis / Loewen / Weiters that the team can get a viable prospect or two for. I am not a poker player, in fact I never play the game. But I do know the basic concept that if you have nothing in your hand, you fold, save your chips, and try again next hand. The Orioles have been sitting with a hand that was all junk, maybe weith an 8 high, for the better part of a decade. Time to fold and wait for the next hand. The nice thing is, in MLB poker, when you fold, they give you some more chips. Maybe even a blue one.

Tuesday, January 15, 2008

I am suffering from a bit of a time crunch here (waiting to be connected to a conference call that I will have to summon all my willpower to keep from snoring through), but I wanted to give a few quick thoughts on something I heard on the radio the last couple of days regarding the NFL playoff games from the weekend...

For those who weren't paying attention (or who don't care to), both of the home teams won on Saturday (as a rule, in the playoffs the home team is the favorite to win, so it is not a big surprise that both teams won). However, both road teams won on Sunday, which was a surprise. However, while listening to the radio wonks ever since, I kept hearing the question asked "Who do you blame for (Colts or Cowboys) losing the game? I understand that the Colts and Cowboys were favored to win the game, but why does that mean that we have to blame someone on those teams for losing? Why are we not asking who we are blaming on the Seahawks for losing to the Packers? Green Bay scored touchdowns on 6 straight possessions. Who on the Seattle defense is to blame? But that question isn't being bandied about. But we have to blame someone on the Cowboys because the Giants beat them? Why can we not (at least start with) praise for the Giants and Chargers for overcoming game time adversity and at times overwhelming odds in order to defeat their favored opponents? Just because they were favored, did they have to screw up in order for the other team to win? Were there reporters surrounding Goliath (or more to the point, were there pundits feverishly carving words into stone tablets) asking who was to blame for his stunning loss to David?

Talk Show Host: "...and we are back here at WWJD taking YOUR calls on who is to blame for the big man falling to the slingshot wonder, who I have to say is now a dark horse candidate in the hotly contested King race! Methusula, you are in the air!

Methusula: "Hi Kent. Long time listener, first time caller..."

Hopefully on Friday, I will be able to look at this a little closer, with a little less venom. And by then, there is a good chance we will know who the nest coach of the Ravens is going to be, and won't THAT lead to some spirited radio discussions!

Tuesday, January 08, 2008

As promised, I am going to endeavor to post twice a week here, hopefully on Tuesday and Friday each week.

Today I am going to discuss one of the biggest myths and misconceptions about the NFL. The schedule ranking. By that I mean that the NFL, in order to promote parity and keep fans hopeful that their team can turn it around (sorry to any Detroit / Arizona fans out there who root for the teams that disprove that rule) use two major facets to facilitate the evening out. The draft and the following year's schedule. We have already looked at the draft, and it is a general rule that the worse a team is in any given year, the higher up their draft position is that off-season. The thing that the NFL does that others don't is choose who a team is going to play based on their final standing in their division. Because of this, you will hear pundits all over talk about how a team is playing a "3rd place schedule" or a "1st place schedule". And that is true. But it doesn't mean crap.

The NFL has 32 teams. These teams are broken up into 2 conferences (the National Football Conference and the American Football Conference, homages to when they were the NFL and the AFL - American Football League - before they merged into one league under the name NFL). Each conference is broken up further into 4 divisions (the North, South, East, and West divisions of each conference). Each division has 4 teams. Simple, straight, and to the point, right?

Every team plays 16 regular season games. Every team plays the other three teams in their division 2 times, one home game and one away game. That is a total of 6 games, leaving 10 left unaccounted for. Every season each conference plays one game a piece against all 4 teams from another division in their own conference and one division from the other conference, on a rotating schedule. By that I mean that in 2007, the Ravens played all 4 teams from the AFC East (Miami, NY Jets, Buffalo, and New England) and the NFC West (San Francisco, St. Louis, Arizona, and Seattle). Last year the Ravens played the AFC West (Denver, San Diego, Oakland, and Kansas City) and the NFC South (Tampa Bay, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina). In 2005 the Ravens played the AFC South (Indianapolis, Tennessee, Jacksonville, and Houston) and the NFC North (Detroit, Chicago, Green Bay, and Minnesota). So by that paradigm, we will be playing the AFC South and the NFC East in 2008 (there are 3 options in the AFC to rotate through versus 4 in the NFC, since we always play our own division). That takes away 8 more games, leaving 2. The last 2 games are going to be against the 2 teams in the AFC (since the Ravens are in the AFC) that finished in the same place in their division as the Ravens in the divisions that the Ravens are not scheduled to play this year. In other words, in 2008 the Ravens are going to play the 4th place teams in the AFC East and the AFC West. So as far as the schedule goes, there is only a 2 game difference between the Ravens and their divisional opponents. Now that being said, 2 games is a big deal in a 16 game schedule. But it isn't the be-all end-all overriding decision maker in a season that many make it out to be. The Ravens play in the AFC North, ended the season 5-11 and will be playing the following teams next year:

Pittsburgh (2x)
Cleveland (2x)
Cincinnati (2x)
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Houston
Tennessee
Dallas
Washington
NY Giants
Philadelphia
Miami
Oakland

Now look at the schedule for the Pittsburgh Steelers (10-6, first in the AFC North):

Baltimore (2x)
Cleveland (2x)
Cincinnati (2x)
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Houston
Tennessee
Dallas
Washington
NY Giants
Philadelphia
New England
San Diego

Besides the fact that they play each other, the schedule is virtually the exact same schedule. The biggest difference will be who the teams get to play at home versus playing away, except for the home and home versus each of their divisional foes. And there is no set rotation of getting to play a certain team at home versus playing them on the road, as evidenced by the Ravens having to travel TO Washington to play the Redskins in both 2000 and 2004, with no other meetings between the teams in the regular season in between or since.

In reality, strength of schedule is more a product of the relative strength or weakness of your particular division and the division that you are playing. For instance, in 2007 the AFC South had 3 teams make it to the playoffs, had no team finish with a record below .500, and ended with a cumulative record of 42-22, while the AFC East had only one team make it to the postseason and had a cumulative record of 28-36. And since one team had 16 of those wins and none of the losses, it shows that the AFC East is a weaker overall conference. As far as the AFC North goes, it got one team in the playoffs, one team that had the same record as one of the playoff teams but missed the postseason due to tiebreakers, and ended with a cumulative record of 32-32.

So while the Ravens DO have a 4th place schedule in 2008, it doesn't necessarily translate into helping them have a better season. And THAT, my friends, is the true definition of parity.