Mags to Yanks?

I read that the Tigers may be looking to unload Magglio Ordonez. The Yankees seem like a perfect fit to me. Abreu is gone, and his production isn't what it could be. And even if his production was as expected, he would probably require at least a 3 or 4 year deal starting near his current $16M salary. Mags is owed $18M this year with two team options following for $18 and $15M. That's exactly the kind of payroll flexibility the Yankees need to take advantage of at this point. 

As for the Tigers? They've shown a proclivity toward dealing with the Yankees, and their farm system is one of the worst in the game, so it seems like they might be willing to swap for a prospect or two. In my mind, this is a deal that would absolutely benefit both sides.

Salary Cap Changing NFL Front Office Markets

The NFL, and it's hard cap system, has long been lauded for its perceived parity. Especially in the early 200os it seemed like new teams were in the playoffs every year and that dynasties were a thing of the past. But then a funny thing happened last year. Only 1 team won double digit games and wasn't at least 8-8 the year before. That team was the Browns, a team that sort of caught fire and a popular pick to regress this year.

In Michael Lewis' Moneyball, for all its faults, he states a pretty simple fact about sports: professional sports leagues are markets, and need to be approached as such. Billy Beane doesn't love OBP as much as he realized that other teams failed to realize its importance, and as such it was an undervalued commodity. 

And in the NFL more than any other sport, roster depth has an enormous effect on a team's success. When you have to evaluate and maintain 55 players, as opposed to 14 (really only 10-12) in the NBA and 25 at any given time in MLB, the market for informed personnel decision makers should go through the roof. You simply can't find 3 guys and let them win a title. You can't stack your rotation and hope they carry you. The guys that make the decisions in the NFL have moved past any serious issues with the salary cap and now we're seeing consistency and continuity becoming the law of the land. This really does not bode well for teams like the 49ers trying to unseat well run teams like the Seahawks and Bucs in the NFC, as it seems more and more likely that those 1 and 2 year turnaround plans of the past need to become 3 and 4 year plans.

Things I Learned Watching US vs. Spain

1. Dwyane Wade is really, really good. Like really good.

2. No matter how D-Wade is, defenses will still gear up to stop LeBron. Now I know that greatness is measured by championships, but if LeBron can win just 1, I think he has a real shot as surpassing Jordan.

3. Ricky Rubio needs to be the next point guard for the Knicks. I don't care what we have to trade to get him. I can't get the thought of him and Gallinari playing for Mike D'Antoni out of my head.

4. Chris Paul seems like he would be cool to hang out with. No reasoning, no proof, just my gut instinct.

5. Jorge Garbajosa might be the one NBA to Europe defection I'm upset about. He was fun to watch play.

6. If the Americans genuinely care about winning and are willing to put in the work and play unselfish basketball, nobody will ever walk into a game with them as less than 20 point underdogs. Can they be beaten? Sure, any team can. But nobody plays this game like we do.

The Case for October in the Bronx

Fact: The Yankees are 5 games back of both Boston and Chicago in the AL Wildcard, and are undoubtedly all but dead in the AL East race

Fact: The Yanks have seemingly forgotten how to hit in RISP situations (some .200-something avg in these situations and two outs)

Fact: It is highly unlikely that either of the White Sox or Red Sox will finish below .500 for the rest of their games, meaning, even if one of these teams go 16-17 in their last 33 games, the Yankees still need to go 21-12 (.635 ball) to tie. Not an easy feat

However, maybe its my cautious optimism built up over the last 15 years about my team, or it could be just faith in the numbers and the situations.

Boston: The Red Sox are in some serious trouble with Josh Beckett out until Friday. Although the reports had him sleeping on his arm the wrong way, Im more concerned and feel like there's no way this injury causes more than a week and two starts skipped. The Red Sox lineup isnt nearly as scary with Manny Ramirez in the lineup. Their bullpen (anyone not named Jon Papelbon) is an absolute disaster. Without a dominant Beckett, can the Sox rely on a previous September burnout (Dice-K) to anchor their rotation through September?

Chicago: The team is on fire right now, there's no doubt. However, the issue remains that they are in a very tight race with the Twins right now, and with those two teams with a few series' left, we can see some beating up effect that they might have on each other and prevent the other from pulling away. Not to mention the team historically is combustible and really can go cold at any second

Yankees: The bottom line is, they have too many games against the Sox and Sox (something like 10 in total). The Yankees major concern is the offense. Pitching has been above average recently, and with Joba and Pavano (yes, Carl Pavano) back, I would expect it to keep the Yankees in most games, providing for a Sidney Ponson blowup once every two weeks. If A-Rod and Giambi can start hitting at least .50 points better with 2-outs RISP, the Yankees are going to score 2-3 runs a game. For a team thats played so many close games this year with a good bullpen, this is going to make a difference. One thing is for sure however, I'm not ready to sell on the Yankees just yet, but things need to start getting a whole lot more consistent at the dish soon.

The Hunted

This has been an interesting two weeks for me. For starters, I started law school, and I was given all of 5 days from the day they told me I was accepted until the day I had to be in Miami. All told: 1200 miles, a ton of caffeine, and 15 hours. 

Not only that, but it's about that time where I have to come to grips with the Yankees not making the playoffs for the first time since 1994, and that was the strike season that ended with them being 3 games better than any other team in the American League. The last season where they legitimately missed the playoffs was 1993. In 1993, Spike Freaking Owen was the starting shortstop. Think about it...I'm 22 years old and the last time the Yankees weren't good enough to be a playoff team, I was a fan of their starting shortstop because his name was Spike. That's a seriously long time ago.

You would think this longevity would be at least respected by other sports fans (I know better than to think anybody would ever admire the Yankees), but more often than not the reaction is something like, "Haha you guys suck! Way to miss the playoffs! What happened, Steinbrenner own some housing stock or something so he couldn't buy you guys a title?" 

This inability to lose and be at peace is something I've dealt with my entire life as a Yankee fan. Every other fan of every other team in the league has seen their team miss the playoffs in the last 5 years. Some fans, most of whom spend their days either lamenting their team on the banks of the Monongahela River or doing whatever it is Rob Neyer grew up doing, start to expect the losing seasons and have to fight away pessimism. Others, like those in Oakland and Milwaukee have the privilege of watching well-run front offices with actual plans build for the future.

Watching the Yankees lose (and let's be honest, they're 7 games over .500, so it's not like they're the 1899 Cleveland Spiders) is a different experience. It's like you're simultaneously getting hit in the head and the balls at the same time. It's not bad enough that your team isn't going to make the playoffs, but now everyone else in the world is happy because you're unhappy. Something about it is just unsettling. 

My point here wasn't really even about the Yankees. It's about sports in general. Anyone who's as addicted to watching the Redeem Team fight the world as I am knows what I'm talking about. I think we should be at a point as sports fans where we can accept that all the money/talent/selection processes in the world can only guarantee you a chance. Maybe it's a better chance than others have, and you're playing with a stacked deck. But no team in any sport is good enough to beat chance for that long. UNC women's soccer only has 1 title in 4 years after winning 15 out of 17. The Patriots lost to the Giants. USA women's softball just won the silver medal in the olympics as softball was being kicked out of the olympics because nobody could beat the Americans.

There are no "locks" in sports anymore. Globalization has meant the extreme proliferation of obscure sports and the training regimens that can help elite athletes succeed. Much like in poker, when sometimes all you can ask is that you limit yourself to a 10% chance of losing, sometimes the field just sneaks up on you. That being said, I don't think I could be any more excited for the Yankees of next year.

Packers Unfair to Rodgers

If I'm Aaron Rodgers right now, I'm freaking pissed. After sitting the bench for three years he was finally handed the starting job, only to have Brett "Nobody Told Me Mississippi Sucked This Bad" Favre decide he didn't want to share. Rodgers is a perfect example of the way the NFL in particular can unfairly commoditize players.

Don't get me wrong, I don't feel that bad for the guy. He's still playing a game for a living and making a very good living at that. But let's remember, he was a late first round pick. Most late first round picks don't get that much money, and for quarterbacks, there is usually a lot of money tied up in performance escalators (see Quinn, Brady). It seems to me that there's an implied agreement involved when a team drafts a player that the team will at least give them an opportunity to better themselves, professionally and financially. 

You could argue that had Brett Favre not gotten hurt against Dallas last year, Green Bay's unwillingness to deviate from the Favre Directive would have prohibited Aaron Rodgers from even maintaining the value he brought into this league as a first round QB. I've got no problem drafting a QB of the future and letting him sit the bench. It worked for Carson Palmer and certainly for Tony Romo, but there's a time in every relationship when you have to be in or out, and for the Packers and Rodgers that time was before the draft. Either the Pack should have sent him out in a Matt Schaub-type deal, or 100% handed the team over, none of this open competition crap.

Here's an idea, why not get Favre to commit to this year and next (since he wants to play so badly), trade Rodgers, and let Brian Brohm have his two year apprenticeship holding a clipboard as the heir apparent? This way Rodgers can start playing for that second contract that all NFL players are seeking and Favre gets to take a guy who entered the year as the top rated QB in the draft under his wing.

The NBA Needs to Tweak the Salary Cap

Recently, Josh Childress became the highest profile (and certainly most in demand) NBA player to leave for a European team. His deal is worth approximately $20M over three years, but since it’s not subject to taxes you have to figure that the actual value is closer to $35 or 40M.

 The NBA should always be able to compete for its own major stars. For young guys like Kevin Durant the immediate endorsement money, combined with the rookie scale contract probably prices most European teams out of contention. For older, more established stars, the money is always gonna be there, just look at the extensions Lebron and CP3 just signed. But the Childress episode highlights the key weakness in the current collective bargaining agreement: the somewhat stars.

 Look, nobody will ever confuse Josh Childress with MJ or even Joe Johnson, but ask anyone who watches basketball and they’ll tell you that at worst he’s a 6^th Man on a championship team. He can defend, get to the basket, and his shooting percentages are in the elite range. The man is incredibly efficient, all while buying into the team concept…which of course leaves him completely undervalued in the And-1 Mixtape world that can be the NBA.

 Granted, the NBA has a way for teams to add players like this. It’s called the mid-level exception and I’ll spare you the definition (If you’re unfamiliar, refer to Larry Coon’s excellent Salary Cap FAQ). The problem here is that, in the NBA, if you’re worth more than the mid-level but less than a max contract, there’s considerably little wiggle room in terms of relocating. Most teams either use their cap room on their own free agents or build up enough for a marquee guy. The only free agent to get considerably less than a max deal but more than the mid-level was Corey Maggette. And for all those econ nerds out there, what happens when the demand for a certain commodity is depressed (in this case, the somewhat star)? His value drops! Usually all the way to the mid-level, where a nice safety net of capped-out, contending teams awaits.

 So you’re Josh Childress. You feel that you’re worth more than the mid-level, but the NBA has established a system that, by ensuring a lack of available cap space, pigeon holes you into a contract starting at around $5.8M/year, is it difficult to see the allure of a Euro team, especially to a reportedly intelligent Stanford guy like yourself?

 Of course it isn’t, and while I’m not like some people out there claiming that the sky is falling on the NBA, I do believe that the NBA is in danger of seeing a steady stream of players of Childress’ caliber head overseas, considerably weakening the NBA product, unless the NBA does something to recognize and compensate these players.

 Here’s my suggestion for fixing this. The reason Euro teams are able to compete like this is a lack of parity. Nobody cares how much a team spends, and teams will spend up to the point where the added competitiveness is negated by the increased loss of money. While a capless league is clearly not an option, the real reasons for the lack of capspace are old, terrible contracts that haven’t expired yet and superstar contracts that are prohibitively huge. The key idea here is that pas financial decisions should never hinder a team from putting a competitive product on the court.

 My idea focuses on reducing the cap drag created by those superstar players. By the time a player like Kevin Garnett is making in the range of $24M/year, he’s effectively using almost half his team’s cap. Why not let players like this only count against the cap for the starting maximum salary? If a max deal starts around $16M, and you’re the owner of a franchise trying to keep your best player, why should it cost half your cap to keep a guy just because you drafted and developed him well?

 Allowing those players to count against the cap at a set price would benefit the league because this exception would only apply to the players at one end of the bell curve. Think about it, NBA teams can already sign veterans to the minimum and have their salaries count less against the cap. Have you ever heard of a really bad veterans minimum deal? Me neither. The mid-level has been a disaster of Isaiah Thomas-level proportions. This is because by placing the exception in the middle of the talent scale you leave yourself open to a wide range of evaluation errors (see: James, Jerome). But if you allow teams to save money on elite players, players they would have paid $16M+ on anyway, you have a better chance of reducing the random errors that accompany all player evaluation, and therefore clearing up more future salary cap money.