I wrote this draft on 6-15-08...everything in ()'s is my 11-10-08 editorial on it:
(Not sure this really applies to Andruw, he just sucked. I think he tried not to suck but it was more mental than physical after a while. In '08 this wasn't true of Schmidt although it was another wasted season. Kent and Nomar spent stretches on the DL but it was more out of age and prior injuries, not being a prima donna).
This belief is not true (not so sure now) although my mind goes there when my team performs badly (but not when the team is on a roll). I guess because it's more convenient than to face the reality that certain players don't perform to their level or the team as a unit seems not to perform well together despite the talent level and price tag of the team assembled (I think this is true still).
Much easier to believe than the theory that no matter how well a team is constructed and how big of a budget your favorite team happens to have to spend, there are just too many variables and too many ways to get hurt in baseball for any particular team to be a sure thing, for any player, much less players, to all be consistent enough at the same time for a fan to ever be happy. I think fans, like the players, must deal with the uncertainties in the game in similar ways. One is to be persistently optimistic in the face of losing streaks and somewhat stoic when the team just keeps winning ball games. The season is a marathon and try not to get too high or too low attitude many ballplayers have. The other way is to demand the impossible from yourself and your teammates. Your team should always win and anything less than that shouldn't be tolerated, blame for the problem should be identified, and corrected as soon as possible.
I guess there might even be an in-between way to deal with this (this idea never panned out into a comprehensible middle ground).
Let's look at that winning Marlins roster. The pitching staff is anchored by 34 year old Mark Hendrickson, former dodger pitching scapegoat. The outfield sports former scapegoat Luis Gonzalez. The team just traded away one of their best young hitters in Miguel Cabrerra for prospects (they also seemed to do pretty well for themselves by trading away the D-Train before he exploded). Despite trading away the young core of their club and signing an over the hill left fielder to be their starter, they're above .500. Who knew? (Who shoulda knew this team couldn't keep it together?)
But what if these teams don't continue to play above .500? Can you just then give these teams the same old excuse that they have to trade away their talent due to budget restraints and have no chance against the big budget teams? But when big market teams lose it's because they gamble starting jobs and lots of money at a free agents who inevitably fail to perform adequately and tie up the budget so the team cannot get the "better bet" free agents, a.k.a the free agent gambles that end up paying off on other teams. Do you keep the players hungry by not locking them up even though it's more expensive to do so? Do you lock them up and then deal them for extra return on your extra players?
This belief is not true (not so sure now) although my mind goes there when my team performs badly (but not when the team is on a roll). I guess because it's more convenient than to face the reality that certain players don't perform to their level or the team as a unit seems not to perform well together despite the talent level and price tag of the team assembled (I think this is true still).
Much easier to believe than the theory that no matter how well a team is constructed and how big of a budget your favorite team happens to have to spend, there are just too many variables and too many ways to get hurt in baseball for any particular team to be a sure thing, for any player, much less players, to all be consistent enough at the same time for a fan to ever be happy. I think fans, like the players, must deal with the uncertainties in the game in similar ways. One is to be persistently optimistic in the face of losing streaks and somewhat stoic when the team just keeps winning ball games. The season is a marathon and try not to get too high or too low attitude many ballplayers have. The other way is to demand the impossible from yourself and your teammates. Your team should always win and anything less than that shouldn't be tolerated, blame for the problem should be identified, and corrected as soon as possible.
I guess there might even be an in-between way to deal with this (this idea never panned out into a comprehensible middle ground).
Let's look at that winning Marlins roster. The pitching staff is anchored by 34 year old Mark Hendrickson, former dodger pitching scapegoat. The outfield sports former scapegoat Luis Gonzalez. The team just traded away one of their best young hitters in Miguel Cabrerra for prospects (they also seemed to do pretty well for themselves by trading away the D-Train before he exploded). Despite trading away the young core of their club and signing an over the hill left fielder to be their starter, they're above .500. Who knew? (Who shoulda knew this team couldn't keep it together?)
(Funny, looking back now that totally didn't last)
The Rays, also above .500 are more true to the team via farm system approach. They traded away a bunch of outfielders only to have the they thought was one of the keepers only to have him go to the DL because of a freak dna disorder. They sport a bunch of pitchers that wouldn't crack the dodgers rotation. They chose to go with a "proven" closer in the 38 year old Percival instead of sticking any one of the number of arms they have with the responsibility.
The Rays, also above .500 are more true to the team via farm system approach. They traded away a bunch of outfielders only to have the they thought was one of the keepers only to have him go to the DL because of a freak dna disorder. They sport a bunch of pitchers that wouldn't crack the dodgers rotation. They chose to go with a "proven" closer in the 38 year old Percival instead of sticking any one of the number of arms they have with the responsibility.
(Not so surprising, the Rays were for real)
But what if these teams don't continue to play above .500? Can you just then give these teams the same old excuse that they have to trade away their talent due to budget restraints and have no chance against the big budget teams? But when big market teams lose it's because they gamble starting jobs and lots of money at a free agents who inevitably fail to perform adequately and tie up the budget so the team cannot get the "better bet" free agents, a.k.a the free agent gambles that end up paying off on other teams. Do you keep the players hungry by not locking them up even though it's more expensive to do so? Do you lock them up and then deal them for extra return on your extra players?
(I still don't know, but I'll keep paying attention to how the Rays do/have done things).
0 Comments:
Post a Comment