Okay so, here's part two of my ongoing series of off-season complaining.
The Yankees are seriously overpaying Mariano Rivera.
Apparently Rivera is close to signing a new contract with the Yankees worth $45 million over 3 years, making him the highest paid closer in history by nearly $5 million/year.
Like many others on the much-hated Yankees, i wish i could say that Rivera actually lacks talent, but the fact is that he has been one of the most dominant closers in the game over the last 10 years. That being said, he seems to have become much more hittable in recent years. Over the last three years his WHIP (walks/hits per inning pitched) has risen slightly every year. More importantly, his OPS-against (on-base plus slugging) and slugging-against have increased. In short, he's letting more runners reach base, and the hits that he's giving up are going for more bases.
Rivera is undeniably one of the best closers of all time. Maybe the best closer of all time. I just think he's in the twilight of his career, and the Yankees are overpaying him. That being said, I think they made a good decision in not agreeing to a fourth year in the contract, as he apparently requested.
The comments on the ESPN story about the deal seem to be fairly well split between "he's getting too old" and "he deserves it for the crap he's put up with in New York." I think the later is a valid point, but I have a feeling that the Yanks aren't including performance bonuses in the contract based on putting up with crap.
The last issue that i have with this contract goes back to my last post, about Posada.
Posada averages about 140 games per season, and, though I don't have stats to back this up, probably plays just about every inning of those games. Lets assume, for the sake of argument, that Posada's age gets to him a little bit this year, so he only plays 120 games, and can only play 8 innings per game before being pulled for a defensive improvement. Again, this is hypothetical.
That would put Posada at 960 innings played over the course of the season. Posada will make $13.1 million next season.
Rivera, on the other hand, averages roughly 75 innings per year and would be making $15 million next season, assuming this new contract is signed.
13,100,000 / 960 = $13,645.84 per inning
15,000,000 / 75 = $200,000 per inning
I realize I'm over-simplifying things a bit here, but all things considered, is Rivera really work nearly 15 times more than Posada is? Seems a bit extreme to me. If I was Posada, i think i'd be a little upset. Then again, if I was Posada i'd be made of money, playing baseball for a living, and married to a former model.
I guess he probably has better things to do with his time than worry about how the Yankees value him relative to Mariano Rivera.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Second-guessing game
One of the best things about the offseason is i get to spend 5 months second-guessing every decision made by baseball's front office, as well as all of the teams. It's only been a couple of weeks, and already I've seen a bunch of stuff that I'm just not sure about.
First off, Jorge Posada's new contract.
Let me preface this by saying that Jorge Posada is a great player, he just plays for the wrong team. I wish he didn't play for the much-hated Yankees so that I could find it in my heart to truly like him as a player. That's basically how I feel about Derek Jeter as well, while we're at it.
The Yankees recently gave Jorge Posada a contract worth $52.4 million over 4 years, which apparently means that Jorge Posada is worth roughly 360 times to the Yankees what I am to my company.
Jorge Posada, while a great player, is a 36-year-old catcher. Catchers, historically, don't age well, and Posada is getting toward an age when all players begin to see a decline in their abilities (with one notable exception), not just catchers. ESPN's Keith Law mentioned this in his ranking of this year's free agents when he reached Paul Lo Duca, but for some reason seemed to overlook that fact for Posada, who is a year older than Lo Duca. I think Posada still has a couple more good years of catching in front of him. After that, I think that the Yankees had better hope that he converts into a solid first baseman.
I'll get to some more things in a later post.
First off, Jorge Posada's new contract.
Let me preface this by saying that Jorge Posada is a great player, he just plays for the wrong team. I wish he didn't play for the much-hated Yankees so that I could find it in my heart to truly like him as a player. That's basically how I feel about Derek Jeter as well, while we're at it.
The Yankees recently gave Jorge Posada a contract worth $52.4 million over 4 years, which apparently means that Jorge Posada is worth roughly 360 times to the Yankees what I am to my company.
Jorge Posada, while a great player, is a 36-year-old catcher. Catchers, historically, don't age well, and Posada is getting toward an age when all players begin to see a decline in their abilities (with one notable exception), not just catchers. ESPN's Keith Law mentioned this in his ranking of this year's free agents when he reached Paul Lo Duca, but for some reason seemed to overlook that fact for Posada, who is a year older than Lo Duca. I think Posada still has a couple more good years of catching in front of him. After that, I think that the Yankees had better hope that he converts into a solid first baseman.
I'll get to some more things in a later post.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Barry Bonds Boycotting hall
Some news came out a few days ago saying that Barry Bonds has announced that he'd boycott the hall of fame if they accept his 756th home run ball marked with an asterisk.
If you were not aware, the ball was purchased at auction by fashion designer Marc Ecko, who then put it to vote whether the ball would be launched into space, marked with an asterisk and sent to the hall of fame, or sent to the hall of fame as it was. Ultimately the asterisk option won out. The hall of fame said that they would accept the ball, since it is a piece of baseball history, but didn't make any specific promises as to how it would be presented, if at all.
I don't really understand why Bonds would think that boycotting is the way to go, but honestly I wouldn't mind if that's how it went down. Obviously I'm not alone on that either.
Bonds has said that you can't have an asterisk in baseball. I'm not entirely sure what he meant by that, but the idea seems to be that he doesn't feel that baseball history should be marked with qualifiers, and should be left pure.
I saw one interesting article that pointed out the irony of his sudden distaste for impurities in baseball.
Not surprisingly, there are some people who would side with Bonds on this.
Ultimately I don't have a problem with the ball being marked or being shown with the mark. I think it signifies the state of baseball these days, and the feelings that many people have about Barry Bonds.
To use an extreme comparison, it's not entirely unlike the Negro League displays in the Hall of Fame.
It may be tempting to pretend like that dark period of segregation never existed, but it's dishonest and important to remember.
If it turns out that Barry Bonds has never used any performance enhancing drugs, then it's unfortunate that he would become the symbol of the steroids era of baseball. At the same time, however, he has brought this upon himself to some degree, by making himself one of the most inaccessible and unlikable characters in baseball for the duration of his career.
If you were not aware, the ball was purchased at auction by fashion designer Marc Ecko, who then put it to vote whether the ball would be launched into space, marked with an asterisk and sent to the hall of fame, or sent to the hall of fame as it was. Ultimately the asterisk option won out. The hall of fame said that they would accept the ball, since it is a piece of baseball history, but didn't make any specific promises as to how it would be presented, if at all.
I don't really understand why Bonds would think that boycotting is the way to go, but honestly I wouldn't mind if that's how it went down. Obviously I'm not alone on that either.
Bonds has said that you can't have an asterisk in baseball. I'm not entirely sure what he meant by that, but the idea seems to be that he doesn't feel that baseball history should be marked with qualifiers, and should be left pure.
I saw one interesting article that pointed out the irony of his sudden distaste for impurities in baseball.
Not surprisingly, there are some people who would side with Bonds on this.
Ultimately I don't have a problem with the ball being marked or being shown with the mark. I think it signifies the state of baseball these days, and the feelings that many people have about Barry Bonds.
To use an extreme comparison, it's not entirely unlike the Negro League displays in the Hall of Fame.
It may be tempting to pretend like that dark period of segregation never existed, but it's dishonest and important to remember.
If it turns out that Barry Bonds has never used any performance enhancing drugs, then it's unfortunate that he would become the symbol of the steroids era of baseball. At the same time, however, he has brought this upon himself to some degree, by making himself one of the most inaccessible and unlikable characters in baseball for the duration of his career.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
World series
Thank god the world series is over. That was truly painful.
I don't have any particular feelings about the Sox winning, like a lot of people. I don't think their fans have become as annoying as Yankee fans, like some people claim. It would have been nice to see the Rockies win, but i knew going into it that their chances were not good, especially with that long layoff.
Mostly I'm glad it's over because it means I don't have to take in baseball games through the filter of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver anymore.
Joe Buck is not a good announcer. I'm not sure why, but I find him to be really grating. I think it's something to do with his tone (or lack thereof) and his insistance on trying to put everything in historical perspective.
Meanwhile, Tim McCarver makes Joe Buck seem like a broadcasting genius.
Tim McCarver has been one of my least favorite broadcasters for as long as I can remember. Even when i was a little kid I recognized him as being a rather lackluster broadcaster, and i know i'm not alone on this.
McCarver may be the only broadcaster about whom i have heard more people complain than either John Madden or Joe Morgan. He may also be the only broadcaster ever to be mocked by another show on the same station that employs him.
To be fair, I don't know that i could do any better, but I really think that I could offer them both some pointers that would improve their performance.
Here are some things that i would suggest:
I don't have any particular feelings about the Sox winning, like a lot of people. I don't think their fans have become as annoying as Yankee fans, like some people claim. It would have been nice to see the Rockies win, but i knew going into it that their chances were not good, especially with that long layoff.
Mostly I'm glad it's over because it means I don't have to take in baseball games through the filter of Joe Buck and Tim McCarver anymore.
Joe Buck is not a good announcer. I'm not sure why, but I find him to be really grating. I think it's something to do with his tone (or lack thereof) and his insistance on trying to put everything in historical perspective.
Meanwhile, Tim McCarver makes Joe Buck seem like a broadcasting genius.
Tim McCarver has been one of my least favorite broadcasters for as long as I can remember. Even when i was a little kid I recognized him as being a rather lackluster broadcaster, and i know i'm not alone on this.
McCarver may be the only broadcaster about whom i have heard more people complain than either John Madden or Joe Morgan. He may also be the only broadcaster ever to be mocked by another show on the same station that employs him.
To be fair, I don't know that i could do any better, but I really think that I could offer them both some pointers that would improve their performance.
Here are some things that i would suggest:
- Think about what you're going to say, write it down, read it, think about it again, and if it still seems like it makes sense then go ahead and say it. This particularly applies to McCarver.
- Stop trying to put everything in historic perspective. I don't really care if Asdrubal Cabrera is the first ever player named Asdrubal to make a diving stop of a ground ball on the third batter of the second inning of the ALCS against a team with the word Sox in their name. If you have to add that many qualifiers to make it seem historically significant, it's probably not historically significant.
- This is a big one: Stop talking about the next game as if the current one is over. I don't care if they plug the next game, but don't assume the outcome of the current game. Any avid baseball fan will tell you that this is an extremely obnoxious thing to do. Even if the score is 15-1 with two outs in the bottom of the 9th, don't assume the win. For most baseball fans, I think this is comparable to discussing a pitcher's no-hitter while they are in the middle of it. It's a huge faux pas.
Thats really about it. If they can work on those three things, I can probably live with them for a while longer.
Bonus: three players who went to school in the area were in the world series, two of whom I played against in High School: Javier Lopez from the Sox went to Robinson; Jeff Baker from the Rockies went to Gar-Field; Joe Koshansky from the Rockies went to Chantilly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)