Athletes Like Money!

Yeah I know, shocking right? Well apparently Randy Hollis just learned this fact and has disclosed this revelation to the Deseret News loyal readers (me in regular/Randy in italics):

Money trumps loyalty in pro sports world

Not to sound like a cynic, but that's pretty much true everywhere.

Enough already with all this endless free agent scuttlebutt about Boozer and LeBron, Bosh and Dwyane (which, by the way, might be the most convoluted way ever invented to spell the name Duane).

That's right! Pish posh to the most exciting free agency period in any sport that I can even remember. ENOUGH! I want more analysis of the 1-3-1 zone defense.

If you're anything like me, you've grown weary of hearing about where they might end up playing basketball next season, and how many gazillion dollars they'll be making just to put that ball in the hoop.

And there it is. Two sentences into the article we get to the gist of the argument. That these professional athletes who are genetic freaks able to do things 99% of people can't, make gazillions of dollars and Randy Hollis is still paying off his Ipod in monthly installments. It's the kind of complaint guys who call into radio sports shows make: "A-rod makes 200 billion a year, why did he strike out last night?" "That doctor makes 6 figures a year, how come one of his patients died?"

I sure do miss the good ol' days, when many star players spent their entire careers with one ballclub.

Ugh...another columnists waxing poetic about a past that didn't actually exist. You know who stayed where they were? Players who played in Chicago, LA, New York and Boston. Know why? They offered the best opportunities to make money. Not just on the court.

I miss John Stockton, who toiled for the same Utah Jazz team throughout his entire 19-year, "Little Engine That Could" career. You don't think he could've bolted sometime along the way to go play somewhere else for more money?

I don't know, I don't have a list of the offers Stockton received as a free agent.

You'd better believe it. Of course he could have, several times.

I'm guessing you don't either then since you provide ZERO examples. But hey Randy, we'll take you word for it. I guess I'll provide the example for you:
Stockton said he would only play for the Jazz and then would meet with the owner and sign a deal. He made a demand in the summer of 1996 when tens of millions of dollars were flying around for free agent guards. He'd sign a $5 million per season deal, less than half of what other free agent guards were making, but he wanted to guarantee ice time in the Delta Center for his seven-year-old son's hockey team.

But, to his credit, Stockton stayed here. Maybe he was afraid to get out of his comfort zone. Maybe it was his fear of the unknown.

Wait wait...Does Randy have some sort on inside info on Stockton? How do you know he feared the unknown? I see nothing about that in his wikipedia profile at least. (what is that picture from? A scan of a Polaroid from 1988? They couldn't do any better than that for the all-time assist leader?) All I've read is that he was most comfortable in the anonymity of Salt Lake City. That's not a moral stance, that's a personal preference.

Maybe he simply chose to stay where he felt he belonged, where he knew he'd always be loved and appreciated by fans and a franchise that treated him well.
I'd prefer to call it something else.
Loyalty.
Loyalty to the franchise that drafted him when a lot of so-called "experts" thought they should've taken somebody else. Yes, Stockton's selection drew plenty of boos and jeers on draft day, just as Gordon Hayward's selection did last week. Back in 1984 — and, perhaps, again in 2010 — several other NBA teams probably scoffed out loud at Utah's first-round pick.
Stockton stayed loyal and true to the team that gave him his chance, an opportunity that many other NBA teams likely would not have given the baby-faced kid from Gonzaga.

This is one of those cases where your rep buys you lee-way. Remember that thing about his son's hockey team getting to play on the ice of the Delta Center? I have no doubt that if it was another athlete like Kobe or Wade it would read "He DEMANDED guaranteed ice time for his son's hockey team." If it was Bonds or Owens they would say he was holding the franchise at gun point just so his spoiled brat of a son could play on the ice of the Delta Center. I really have no doubt about it. That's how sports reporters work.

That loyalty turned into a historic, Hall of Fame career for which Jazz fans and management will be eternally grateful.

Yeah, they tend to be grateful when you turn into a Hall of Famer.

The same could be said for Karl Malone — well, except for that little one-year journey to L.A. to play for the Lakers in an ill-fated attempt to win a championship at the end of his career.

That link I put up there about Stockton also talks about how Malone's contract negotiations were "contentious." But he at least stayed around I guess.


I certainly can't fault Malone too much for leaving, either. He played for peanuts, by NBA standards anyway, in his short stint with the Lakers. And he was honest in his desire and sole goal for leaving Utah — to try and win an NBA title before he was done.
For 18 seasons, though, you could count on the Mailman to make his deliveries in Utah.

And women's vaginas! Dude 3 kids by the age of 20, he's lucky he made that NBA salary. Wonder how much of that is left.

Too often nowadays, professional athletes loudly proclaim that their biggest priority is to win a championship — and then they promptly go sign with whichever team waves the most money in front of their overpaid faces.

I will point out that those are not mutually exclusive.


Loyalty.
The kind that would keep LeBron James in Cleveland and Dwyane Wade in Miami.
Indeed, any more, it seems like a lost quality.

That's just a horribly constructed sentence. He's trying to be poetic but...FAIL. Should read "MORE and more, it seems..."

Heck, the only loyalty most athletes seem to have nowadays is to themselves — and to the almighty dollar.

As opposed to back when the owners were making millions and the players had to work two jobs to support themselves while they destroyed their bodies. That's loyalty. Asking for the amount of money you're worth at your job, that's selfishness. As Dwight said on The Office, "I'm going wherever they 'value' loyalty more."


Of course, you could make the argument that, quite often, professional franchises aren't very loyal to their players, either. Loyalty should be a two-way street, and athletes often get traded away or released right when they're about to receive a fat salary bonus, or just before it's time to pick up their option.

Well at least he pointed it out.

In this day and age of free agency and mega-million contracts, I suppose it's silly to think that a pro athlete would want to stay in one place, especially if he could make more money someplace else.

Hey, Randy is starting to get it.


But, fortunately, that wasn't always true. Some of pro sports' all-time greats stayed put, even though they certainly could've gone elsewhere.

Do you have any examples?

John Elway spent his entire NFL career with the Denver Broncos.

Franchise quarterbacks tend to get paid lots of money and therefore tend to stay with that team. Also he retired instead of carrying on a yearly soap opera like Farve. When the Packers were done with Farve, the face of their franchise what did they do? That's right, they sent him out to pasture. Some loyalty.

Ditto for major league baseball player Cal Ripken Jr. and the Baltimore Orioles. Way back when, if you can imagine, Brooks Robinson (Orioles) and Carl Yastrzemski (Red Sox) each played 23 years — and never changed teams.
But, let's face it, the bulk of their careers came before Curt Flood's bold decision to challenge baseball's reserve clause, which eventually opened the door for free agency.

Thank goodness you pointed that out, I was about to freak completely out. And remember, back then (and still today for the most part) a team could just trade you on a whim and you'd have to pick up your life and move with no choice in the matter. Where's the loyalty there?


Since then, however, a handful of high-profile NBA players have, like Stockton, stayed with the same team throughout their careers. And currently in the NBA, stars like Kobe Bryant (Lakers), Tim Duncan (Spurs), Paul Pierce (Celtics) and Dirk Nowitzki (Mavericks) have each spent their entire careers with one team — thus far.

Yes, if you're a good player you tend to receive more "loyalty" from your team than mediocre players.

We must say thus far, because Pierce and Nowitzki have declared themselves free agents this year.
Chances are, though, they'll re-sign with the Celtics and Mavs, respectively.
Because they're among that shrinking group of guys that seem to hold on to that vanishing virtue called loyalty

Or because they're at the end of their careers and people don't want to shell out a bunch of money for beat up players.

— an admirable quality that seems to have gone the way of Stockton's short shorts, and likely won't be coming back any time soon, if at all.

Well thank god for that last part.

Case Closed!

Brian Sabean Hate Late Fees

I'm not sure if that title really works for this article, but here we go:

Brian Sabean: Giants Won't 'Rent Players'

My title works with that concept. I dunno. In a Netflix world that joke seems dated I guess.

As the Giants continue to have trouble scoring runs,

7th worst in MLB.

...while grounding into double plays at what manager Bruce Bochy called "epidemic" levels,

83 GDP which is 2nd most in MLB behind the Twins.

...general manager Brian Sabean has cast a wide net on the trade market in his search for a bat.

San Francisco and their fishing metaphors.

While still allowing for the possibility that his team will start to click as currently constituted, Sabean said Tuesday night that the Giants have only one limitation in pursuing another hitter."We are not interested in free agents," Sabean told FanHouse. "We don't want to rent players."

Good god why not? You get use of a guy for a run in the playoffs and then he's off the books at the end of the year. What's wrong with that idea?

"That doesn't make sense for us. We've got to find someone we can control,"

Sabean said as he palmed the giant globe that sits in the middle of his office.

"...much like the Freddy Sanchez deal, and hope that presents itself."

Oh no, his plan for world domination involves signing mediocre light-hitting middle infielders. Quick, somone hide Walt Weiss.

When the Giants got Sanchez last July, they had control of him for at least one more year, and they eventually signed him for two more."Anybody that fits that mold," Sabean said,

So anyone who will sign with you? Wouldn't that possibly be anybody you trade for?

"we are going to be heavy in the scouting side of it and see if it makes sense to explore."

Yes, you shouldn't just trade for players randomly. That would be just awful GMing. That's how the Cubs lost Rafael Palmeiro

Sabean said the Giants have money to spend, too: "We won't have a problem from that standpoint. We're in good shape there."

Gee, so you would be able to offer a rented player more money to stay for longer, seems like you should probably consider that option then.

The only position where the Giants might have difficulty squeezing in a new acquisition is first base, a spot where they can currently play Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval or Aubrey Huff.

So don't look for one. Obviously you're not going to trade for a position you already have sowed up.

Given those parameters, the best fits for the Giants are probably outfielders like Corey Hart, David DeJesus and Josh Willingham. Prince Fielder might also be a fit. He'd be enough of an upgrade for the Giants to do the lineup shuffling required to fit in another first baseman.Forget about Adam Dunn, Jose Guillen, Derrek Lee, Paul Konerko and Ty Wigginton. All are free agents at the end of the season.

That's rough, I mean I guess you could get one of those players and then offer them a new contract with all that money Sabean was talking about earlier. But whatever.


Other than a bat, the Giants are probably going to be in the market for a setup man. Closer Brian Wilson has been very good this year, but the rest of the bullpen has been shaky, as the Giants have rolled through several pitchers in various setup roles. Sabean said the Giants might even consider adding a starter, even though they appear to be set with Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Barry Zito, Jonathan Sanchez and Madison Bumgarner."I don't know you ever have enough starting pitching," he said. "I'm not sure what our depth is."

That's a great line by a GM.

The rest of this is inoffensive, but if I was a Giants fan, and felt the team was one bat away from a WS run, I would be ticked off at Sabean.

Case Closed!

There is no God!

I'm not positive, but I think Sky Andrecheck lost his job writing for SI.com. Look here. No articles since April 22nd. This is horrible news for me who built this blog off ripping apart his articles. At least I still have Phil Rogers.

Wow, Twice in One Week

Mark Potash must be on some sort of mission. A mission to share ill-informed opinions about Chicago baseball. Poor town. So Potash spits out this article continuing his evaluation of Chicago baseball players:

Sorry White Sox fans, but Mr. Cub is Mr. Chicago.
Ernie Banks was an easy choice as the No. 1 Cubs player of all-time when the Sun-Times rated the top players in each of the city's major pro teams in February and March. Frank Thomas was an easy choice as the No. 1 player in Sox history.
But in a Cubs vs. Sox list of best players in the wake of the BP Crosstown Cup series at U.S. Cellular Field this weekend,

Wait, wait, wait. Chicago named their series the BP Crosstown Cup series? Brilliant timing Chi-Town. I'm planning on having a crosstown bicycle race here in Bronson, MI called the Kellogg's Special K Bowl.

Banks gets the edge over Big Frank as the best Chicago player of all-time. And actually, it's not that close.

I am vaguely familiar with each players career. I doubt that last sentence very much.

Banks put up unprecedented numbers as a shortstop -- from 1955-60 he averaged 41 homers and 116 RBI, won two home run titles, two RBI titles and back-to-back MVP awards in 1958-59.

That is a crazy 5 year period. It really is, especially for a short-stop. He put up a WAR of 48.8 during those 6 years. Thomas peak would be around 41.1. Looking deeper Banks WAR is being carrier by his fielding, which is equally hurting Thomas. Seriously as good as Banks was a fielding, Thomas was as bad.

And in 1960 he led the NL in home runs with 41 and won the Gold Glove at shortstop.

Neat-o!
Banks extended his career by playing first base. Thomas started at first base, tired of it and extended his career as a DH. In fact, Banks played more games at first base (1,259) than Thomas (971).

Don't care about any of that. Games played at first? Great. Was a DH? That's up to how you feel about DHing. If you hate it you're going to give Banks the edge.

But Thomas still gets his due in our position-by-position list of best Sox/Cubs of all-time. With Banks at shortstop, Thomas is the clear choice at first base over the great Dick Allen and the the Cubs' Phil Cavaretta, the pride of Lane Tech. And he deserves it. Thomas batted .275 with 29 home runs and 117 RBI per 500 at-bats as a first baseman with the White Sox. It's not like he couldn't play the position. He just preferred to hit.

I'm trying to decide how to make the case for Thomas. Stat by stat? Or one their lines on top of each other? Let's do both.

Banks .274/.330/.500/.830 OPS+ 122 WOBA .358 WAR 74.1 Fielding 54

Thomas .301/.419/.555/.974 OPS+156 WOBA .379 WAR 79.1 Fielding -68.2


I would say offensively it's not even close. When it comes to fielding Banks is so far superior they're not even playing the same game. The DH probably saves Thomas in WAR since his fielding constantly hurt him. My point though is, it's a close call. If you're a Cubs fan, you'll say Banks because he was the complete player. If you're a Sox fan you'll say Thomas because he was one of the greatest hitters of all time, far beyond Banks.

What I'm trying to say is this:
Banks gets the edge over Big Frank as the best Chicago player of all-time. And actually, it's not that close.
is bull.

Case Closed.

That's a Strong Looking Philly You Got There...

My dear old friend Phil Rogers decided to write about the hottest team in baseball. You know, the one that lost to the Cubs who are 9 games under .500. Just one game though right? Of course. Sadly, Phil chooses to list the 10 reasons the White Sox have turned it around, and none of them consist of Buttafuoco:

1. Pitching: Nothing does more to keep you in a playoff chase than starting pitching. The Sox's rotation has done an about-face since June 8, when it had a 5.22 earned-run average. Jake Peavy, Mark Buehrle & Co. have hung up a 2.33 mark in the last 17 games. That's not going to continue forever, but split the difference between the good number and the bad number and you've got a 3.78 ERA. Only five teams are getting better work from their starters, with the Rays the only one in the AL.

That is NOT how statistics work. You choose two stretches of games then average out the averages to see how well a team's pitching will perform, that's completely ludicrous. The Sox have a team era over this year of 4.26 putting them in 8th place in the AL. Not great. But what's this? The White Sox LEAD the league in FIP and xFIP. Also they lead the league in K/9. 4th in BB/9. 3rd in HR/9. So that whole team ERA thing is a bit misleading and shows that while they probably over-peformed the last couple weeks, Phil is right that they are a better pitching team then they've shown.
As for the last sentence, where he pulls that conclusion from I have no idea. The White Sox starters are again, end of the pack in ERA. But if Phil is just going on the last couple weeks they're the best by far. Where the Rays come in I have no idea, unless he's just going on a random guess of potential. The Rays don't lead the league in any category that's of any significance. The Mariners however...

2. Rios: Thank you, Blue Jays. Ken Williams took a huge risk by claiming Rios on waivers last summer, when the $62 million left on his deal represented the biggest financial commitment in franchise history. He's a two-way stud, positioned for a 30/50 season while playing a great center field.

Rios has been playing very well for the White Sox. But nowhere does he project to go 30/50. Zips U(pdated) has him going 24/36. He is playing a good center field, which he has done consistently.

3. Alexei Ramirez: The third-year big-leaguer has quietly developed into one of the best shortstops in the AL, rewarding Guillen's confidence in him. The Sox have allowed 15 unearned runs, the seventh-lowest figure in the majors.

Alexei has played great defense and continues to develop year after year. However he is not the sole reason the Sox have only allowed 15 unearned runs. And really, being 7th in the Majors is fine, it's really not a reason to throw out there for a team's success.

There's nothing else particularly egregious about this article, but some of the poor choices for stats Phil used deserved to be called out.

Case Closed.