"The Possibilites Were Endless"
During the few days between when the Broncos announced they would definitely trade Jay Cutler and when it was confirmed Cutler went to the Bears, I had been planning to write something on where I thought he might go and where I wanted him to go. Unfortunately, the trade happened much quicker than I anticipated, but here's what I was thinking at the time:
Where I wanted Cutler to go:
1. Jets/Browns
2. Redskins
3. Bears
Where I thought Cutler might go:
1. Bucs
2. Lions
3. Redskins
New York Jets/Cleveland Browns
Although Cutler could have gone to either of these two teams, I treat them as one possibility. One of the early rumors involved Cutler to the Jets, New York draft picks to Cleveland, and Brady Quinn to the Broncos. Or Cutler could have gone straight to the Browns for Quinn (which I considered less likely because they still have Derek Anderson). The Broncos certainly would have wanted more than just Quinn in this scenario and defensive tackle Shaun Rogers could have complemented Denver's wretched D.
These two (essentially the same) scenarios were my number one choice for Denver. Above all, if Cutler left, I believed Denver needed a new quarterback- Chris Simms would not cut it. I wanted this quarterback to be a young guy, one that McDaniels could mold and integrate into his system. Quinn was the ideal candidate. Playing at Notre Dame under Charlie Weis, another ex-Patriot, Quinn already had experience with the type of offense McDaniels would be interested in.
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Along with Detroit, Tampa Bay was the rumored destination in the original three-way trade talks that involved giving away Cutler in order to reunite McDaniels and Matt Cassell. The Bucs desperately needed a QB (and still do). After they made their original move for Cutler and failed, howeverm the Bucs gave their 2nd round pick to Cleveland for tight end Kellen Winslow and thus didn't have much to offer Denver. As the final trade with Chicago showed, the Bucs' 19th overall pick wouldn't have cut it. I still expected the Bucs to offer the Broncos everything they had for Cutler.
Detroit Lions
It is clear Detroit needs a quarterback. They also have the first overall pick in the draft (as well as the 20th). These are powerful bargaining chips, as McDaniels could have used the first overall pick on Matthew Stafford from Georgia. The number one pick comes with a lot of risk for the money though, and McDaniels' quarterback experience has been primarily with later picks (Brady and Cassell). I didn't really think this move was too likely, but there were a lot of NFC North rumblings and I thought the Lions had the most to give of the three NFC North teams interested (Minnsota and Chicago being the other two).
Washington Redskins
For a while, I really started to think Cutler might go to the Redskins. The lack of a good franchise quarterback had been a long standing problem for the 'Skins, and they are known for pursuing big name players. The Wahington Post published an article claiming Washington was gunning hard for this to happen. There were even rumors and speculation the coach Jim Zorn could be replaced by Mike Shanahan in 2010, reuniting with Cutler, though I think speculating that far in advance is idle fantasy. Despite the Shanhan talk, Cutler for Campbell made sense. Campbell struggled to acclimate to Zorn's West Coast style of play, an environment in which Cutler thrived. The Redskins also had some draft picks to throw in, but these were still not enough for Denver.
The interesting outcome of the Cutler-Skins hype will be how Jason Campbell handles his job insecurity. Recall that it was trade rumors that caused this whole Cutler mess. So far, Campbell seems to be handling it with a greater maturity than Cutler did.
Those were my thoughts prior to the trade going down. Post-trade, the only questions that remain of course are the implications for Denver and for Chicago. But that's coming in Part Three.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
The Jay Cutler Saga, Part 1
"Everyone's to Blame"
Our long national nightmare is over. Jay Cutler is no longer a member of the Denver Broncos. With it goes my three month emotional roller coaster ride, replaced by an eager anxiety to see how the new team performs. Honestly, I'm just glad it is finally done. Cutler and a 5th round pick are going to the Bears for Kyle Orton, a first rounder, a third, and a 2010 first. I've now had a day to reflect on this whole mess, and I'm ready to play the blame game.
The post-season drama began with the firing of Mike Shanahan late last December. Broncos fans rang in the New Year drunk on confusion and uncertainty. Two days earlier, the team completed their fall from a playoff spot to a disappointing second place in a bad conference. Still, the Shanahan firing came as a shock to players, media, and fans alike. Initially I was upset, but my anger eventually subsided into curiousity. Who to replace "The Mastermind"?
Owner Pat Bowlen hired Josh McDaniels, the Patriots' offensive coordinator and quarterback coach. McDaniels' offensive style obviously differed greatly from Shanahan's West Coast style of play, but Jay Cutler initially expressed an interest in learning McDaniels' system. However, he also made a public appeal for McDaniels to retain the Broncos' offensive staff. McDaniels canned offensive coordinator and quarterback coach Jeremy Bates and replaced him with Mike McCoy anway. Thus, the Jay Cutler Saga began.
Who's to blame at this stage? Not Jay for wanting to keep a coach with whom he is comfortable and familiar. Not McDaniels for hiring new staff- he is the head coach after all. Blame Bowlen at this stage. Cutler performed well under the Shanahan/Bates offense. The 2008 season showed more than anything that it was the Broncos' defense that needed an overhaul. Bowlen should have foreseen this potential conflict between coach and quarterback. Either keeping Shanahan or hiring a defensive minded coach (Steve Spagnuolo!) would have been a better solution. Bowlen either didn't foresee a disagreement or didn't care about (or underestimated) its consequences. In the end, the personalities and decisions of McDaniels and Cutler are to blame for the negative and dramatic way this turned out, but Bowlen's decisions to fire Shanahan and hire McDaniels were the avoidable catalysts.
Josh McDaniels' staffing choices made Jay Cutler distinctly aware of just how much change McDaniels planned to bring to the Broncos organization. So, when news broke in early March that McDaniels had listened to an offer for Cutler, Cutler could have done well to have been a little less shocked. The entire structure of the team had been upended, yet Cutler still believed his job was sacred. Being upset in such a situation is justified, as long as that situation is handled professionally. Instead, Cutler's erratic and sometimes infantile response dominated sports news for the next month. Real-time media drives the modern world, and the NFL is no different. Of course, it didn't used to be this way. As soon as the theoretical 3-way Cutler-Cassel trade story broke, Cutler and his agent, Bus Cook, should have immediately met with Josh McDaniels to talk through Cutler's role on the team.
A coach has the right (and the duty) to do what he feels is best for his team. A quarterback (or any player for that matter) should have a good relationship with his coach and his owner and make his vision for the team clear. The NFL and their employees, whether they be players, coaches, or owners, have a responsibility to try to get along with their co-workers and work together for the success of their team. To me, this seems like a basic tenet of effective communication in the workplace. Yet, the two sides talked more to the media than to each other about the situation. This is not an appropriate way to get across a message. When the two parties actually did talk directly to each other, it was more often through text messages than face-to-face.
The massive media attention garnered by the situation has an upside. People are now much more aware of who Josh McDaniels and Jay Cutler are. Their arrogance and naivety showed the world how young the coach and the quarterback really are. By prancing around in the public eye, the two should be aware by now of how their actions were perceived. Since they'll both be facing increased scrutiny this season, McDaniels and particularly Cutler should take advantage of this opportunity to grow.
Despite Cutler's childlike behavior in March, I see in him the potential to become an elite player. He is only twenty-five and has played for only three seasons. He has already shown his character and toughness by playing through an undiagnosed case of Type I Diabetes in 2007. He got healthy and had great stats in 2008. Perhaps being on the Bears will have a maturation effect on him. Chicagoans will be watching his every move. And after all, if he messes up, he'll have to answer to his parents, lifelong Chicago Bears fans.
Part One recapped the events leading up to the Jay Cutler trade and considered issues of personality, attitude, and behavior. Part Two will consider the 2009 football implications.
Our long national nightmare is over. Jay Cutler is no longer a member of the Denver Broncos. With it goes my three month emotional roller coaster ride, replaced by an eager anxiety to see how the new team performs. Honestly, I'm just glad it is finally done. Cutler and a 5th round pick are going to the Bears for Kyle Orton, a first rounder, a third, and a 2010 first. I've now had a day to reflect on this whole mess, and I'm ready to play the blame game.
The post-season drama began with the firing of Mike Shanahan late last December. Broncos fans rang in the New Year drunk on confusion and uncertainty. Two days earlier, the team completed their fall from a playoff spot to a disappointing second place in a bad conference. Still, the Shanahan firing came as a shock to players, media, and fans alike. Initially I was upset, but my anger eventually subsided into curiousity. Who to replace "The Mastermind"?
Owner Pat Bowlen hired Josh McDaniels, the Patriots' offensive coordinator and quarterback coach. McDaniels' offensive style obviously differed greatly from Shanahan's West Coast style of play, but Jay Cutler initially expressed an interest in learning McDaniels' system. However, he also made a public appeal for McDaniels to retain the Broncos' offensive staff. McDaniels canned offensive coordinator and quarterback coach Jeremy Bates and replaced him with Mike McCoy anway. Thus, the Jay Cutler Saga began.
Who's to blame at this stage? Not Jay for wanting to keep a coach with whom he is comfortable and familiar. Not McDaniels for hiring new staff- he is the head coach after all. Blame Bowlen at this stage. Cutler performed well under the Shanahan/Bates offense. The 2008 season showed more than anything that it was the Broncos' defense that needed an overhaul. Bowlen should have foreseen this potential conflict between coach and quarterback. Either keeping Shanahan or hiring a defensive minded coach (Steve Spagnuolo!) would have been a better solution. Bowlen either didn't foresee a disagreement or didn't care about (or underestimated) its consequences. In the end, the personalities and decisions of McDaniels and Cutler are to blame for the negative and dramatic way this turned out, but Bowlen's decisions to fire Shanahan and hire McDaniels were the avoidable catalysts.
Josh McDaniels' staffing choices made Jay Cutler distinctly aware of just how much change McDaniels planned to bring to the Broncos organization. So, when news broke in early March that McDaniels had listened to an offer for Cutler, Cutler could have done well to have been a little less shocked. The entire structure of the team had been upended, yet Cutler still believed his job was sacred. Being upset in such a situation is justified, as long as that situation is handled professionally. Instead, Cutler's erratic and sometimes infantile response dominated sports news for the next month. Real-time media drives the modern world, and the NFL is no different. Of course, it didn't used to be this way. As soon as the theoretical 3-way Cutler-Cassel trade story broke, Cutler and his agent, Bus Cook, should have immediately met with Josh McDaniels to talk through Cutler's role on the team.
A coach has the right (and the duty) to do what he feels is best for his team. A quarterback (or any player for that matter) should have a good relationship with his coach and his owner and make his vision for the team clear. The NFL and their employees, whether they be players, coaches, or owners, have a responsibility to try to get along with their co-workers and work together for the success of their team. To me, this seems like a basic tenet of effective communication in the workplace. Yet, the two sides talked more to the media than to each other about the situation. This is not an appropriate way to get across a message. When the two parties actually did talk directly to each other, it was more often through text messages than face-to-face.
The massive media attention garnered by the situation has an upside. People are now much more aware of who Josh McDaniels and Jay Cutler are. Their arrogance and naivety showed the world how young the coach and the quarterback really are. By prancing around in the public eye, the two should be aware by now of how their actions were perceived. Since they'll both be facing increased scrutiny this season, McDaniels and particularly Cutler should take advantage of this opportunity to grow.
Despite Cutler's childlike behavior in March, I see in him the potential to become an elite player. He is only twenty-five and has played for only three seasons. He has already shown his character and toughness by playing through an undiagnosed case of Type I Diabetes in 2007. He got healthy and had great stats in 2008. Perhaps being on the Bears will have a maturation effect on him. Chicagoans will be watching his every move. And after all, if he messes up, he'll have to answer to his parents, lifelong Chicago Bears fans.
Part One recapped the events leading up to the Jay Cutler trade and considered issues of personality, attitude, and behavior. Part Two will consider the 2009 football implications.
Friday, March 27, 2009
NL Central Prediction
1st: Cubs (93-69)
2nd: Cardinals (88-74)
3rd: Reds (82-80)
4th: Brewers (82-80)
5th: Astros (74-88)
6th: Pirates (71-91)
There shouldn't be much in the way of the Cubs and another division title this year. The team will miss Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa but they may have been wise not to pay Kerry Wood the $10MM+ a year Cleveland is. Even if Milton Bradley can only play 100 games for the Cubs and Rich Harden only makes 20 starts, the Cubs should be OK. The Cubs' top 4 pitchers of Harden, Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly will probably regress a bit from last season but if they can swing a deal for the Padres' Jake Peavy that rotation could be among the best in baseball history.
The Cardinals really surprised me last year by staying in contention all season and I think they should do again with a healthy Chris Carpenter (who is having a very good spring training) and a healthy Adam Wainwright. Their infield defense will be a problem however with Khalil Greene coming over from San Diego to play shortstop and outfielder Skip Schumaker moving to second base. I think their offense led by Albert Pujols and backed up by Ryan Ludwick and Rick Ankiel should be enough to vault the Cardinals to a wild card and a return to the playoffs.
The Reds are one of those teams that I think will break out every year, so I will keep with tradition and say they break out again. Big gains from Jay Bruce and Joey Votto should offset the mid-season loss of Adam Dunn and team with Edwin Encarncion and Brandon Phillips to make a respectable offense. The team discovered an ace last year in Edinson Volquez and improvement from Johnny Cueto and a bounce-back from Aaron Harang should bring the Reds back to respectability and allow them to make a run for the playoffs in 2010 with some savvy acquistions.
It is impossible to replace CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets at the top of any rotation and a full season of Yovani Gallardo and a free agent signing of Braden Looper won't be able to do it, although they should be respectable. The Brewers' potent offense led by Prince Fielder, J.J. Hardy, Ryan Braun and Corey hart is back this year though a midseason trade could ship someone like Fielder out of a top-of-the line pitcher. There is also the possibility that the the Brewers could sign Ben Sheets when he comes back from injury around August and he could be impetus to lead the Brewers down the stretch.
The Astros really surprised me when they made a late playoff push at the end of last season, but I think that was just a fluke. They have three really good players in Lance Berkman, Roy Oswalt and Carlos Lee (who was injured during the Astros' playoff push last year) but after that there's not much about which to get excited. There isn't really any pitching depth behind Oswalt and their offense has several holes. They sold the farm last offseason to acquire Miguel Tejada from the Orioles and he aged two years before he even had an at-bat and he is clearly on the decline. It may be time for the Astros to sell off their talent now and start re-building.
Once again, "Pittsburgh Baseball" is just another meaningless phrase. When you finish last in your division and your key off-season acquisition is Ramon Vazquez, another last place finish is pretty much inevitable. THe Pirates do have some talent deep in their minor leagues but that won't help for 2009. It'll be a successful season for the Bucs ifPaul Maholm continues to pitch well and if the likes of Ian Snell, Tom Gorzelanny and Andy LaRoche prove that they are major league material.
2nd: Cardinals (88-74)
3rd: Reds (82-80)
4th: Brewers (82-80)
5th: Astros (74-88)
6th: Pirates (71-91)
There shouldn't be much in the way of the Cubs and another division title this year. The team will miss Kerry Wood and Mark DeRosa but they may have been wise not to pay Kerry Wood the $10MM+ a year Cleveland is. Even if Milton Bradley can only play 100 games for the Cubs and Rich Harden only makes 20 starts, the Cubs should be OK. The Cubs' top 4 pitchers of Harden, Carlos Zambrano, Ryan Dempster and Ted Lilly will probably regress a bit from last season but if they can swing a deal for the Padres' Jake Peavy that rotation could be among the best in baseball history.
The Cardinals really surprised me last year by staying in contention all season and I think they should do again with a healthy Chris Carpenter (who is having a very good spring training) and a healthy Adam Wainwright. Their infield defense will be a problem however with Khalil Greene coming over from San Diego to play shortstop and outfielder Skip Schumaker moving to second base. I think their offense led by Albert Pujols and backed up by Ryan Ludwick and Rick Ankiel should be enough to vault the Cardinals to a wild card and a return to the playoffs.
The Reds are one of those teams that I think will break out every year, so I will keep with tradition and say they break out again. Big gains from Jay Bruce and Joey Votto should offset the mid-season loss of Adam Dunn and team with Edwin Encarncion and Brandon Phillips to make a respectable offense. The team discovered an ace last year in Edinson Volquez and improvement from Johnny Cueto and a bounce-back from Aaron Harang should bring the Reds back to respectability and allow them to make a run for the playoffs in 2010 with some savvy acquistions.
It is impossible to replace CC Sabathia and Ben Sheets at the top of any rotation and a full season of Yovani Gallardo and a free agent signing of Braden Looper won't be able to do it, although they should be respectable. The Brewers' potent offense led by Prince Fielder, J.J. Hardy, Ryan Braun and Corey hart is back this year though a midseason trade could ship someone like Fielder out of a top-of-the line pitcher. There is also the possibility that the the Brewers could sign Ben Sheets when he comes back from injury around August and he could be impetus to lead the Brewers down the stretch.
The Astros really surprised me when they made a late playoff push at the end of last season, but I think that was just a fluke. They have three really good players in Lance Berkman, Roy Oswalt and Carlos Lee (who was injured during the Astros' playoff push last year) but after that there's not much about which to get excited. There isn't really any pitching depth behind Oswalt and their offense has several holes. They sold the farm last offseason to acquire Miguel Tejada from the Orioles and he aged two years before he even had an at-bat and he is clearly on the decline. It may be time for the Astros to sell off their talent now and start re-building.
Once again, "Pittsburgh Baseball" is just another meaningless phrase. When you finish last in your division and your key off-season acquisition is Ramon Vazquez, another last place finish is pretty much inevitable. THe Pirates do have some talent deep in their minor leagues but that won't help for 2009. It'll be a successful season for the Bucs ifPaul Maholm continues to pitch well and if the likes of Ian Snell, Tom Gorzelanny and Andy LaRoche prove that they are major league material.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
NL East Prediction
So over the next few days, I'll post my prediction for the 2009 MLB season, division-by-division. Today, I'll start with the NL East.
1st: Phillies (88-74)
2nd: Mets (85-77)
3rd: Braves (84-78)
4th: Marlins (79-83)
5th: Nationals (65-97)
I don't really like the Phillies' signing of Raul Ibanez, especially when a younger, better, right-handed Pat Burrell signed for cheaper and for fewer years. Nevertheless, most of last year's World Series winning team is back and their holes are relatively minor and could be resolved through trades or internally (starting pitching depth [right now the Phillies are banking on three tentative things: Cole Hamels' health, Brett Myers' consistency and 46-year-old Jamie Moyer's effectiveness], a left-handed reliever for the first 50 games [until J.C. Romero returns from suspension] and a right-handed bench bat).
The Mets' offseason reminds me of that scene from Vegas Vacation where Chevy Chase creates a hole in the Hoover Dam and tries to plug it with a stick of gum only to find more and more holes created. They did a great job revitalizing their bullpen by acquiring Francisco Rodriguez and J.J. Putz but there are enough other holes on this team to prevent them for winning the division. Last year, the Mets relied on the likes of Carlos Delgado, Fernando Tatis and Daniel Murphy to keep them afloat. They can't do that again. Their offense is rather weak outside of their three fantastic hitters--David Wright, Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran. Their rotation also drops off significantly after Johan Santana. I expect one of the two between John Maine and Mike Pelfrey to have a healthy, productive season but any time Livan Hernandez is in a starting rotation, there is a major, major problem.
Atlanta had a strange few months with their franchise player (John Smoltz) wearing something other than a Braves uniform for the first time since 1988. Additionally, the Braves had a lot of drama surronding their near-miss free agent signings of Rafael Furcal and Ken Griffey Jr. and also nearly missed out on A.J. Burnett and Jake Peavy. However, they still did a great job re-tooling their rotation by acquiring three decent starters in Derek Lowe, Javier Vazquez and Kenshin Kawakami. Their offense should be respectable and if they get improvement from Casey Kotchman and a rebound from Jeff Francoeur the Braves could be a scary team.
The Marlins took me by surprise last year by finishing above .500 and very well could do so again. Their young rotation of Ricky Nolasco, Josh Johnson, Chris Volstad, Andrew Miller and Anibal Sanchez could end up being the best in the National League. I am concerned that they gave up too many unspectatular but useful players in the offseason in Josh Willingham, Scott Olsen, Mike Jacobs, Kevin Gregg and Joe Nelson. They will need youngsters and rookies to fill these roles and if they are unable to do so and if there is expected inconsistency out of the young pitching, more names may be added to the 'give up' list come July 31st.
I don't really understand the Nationals' signing of Adam Dunn especially with a rotation that is in shambles and for a team whose one surplus is in first base/outfield type players (Nick Johnson, Dmitri Young, Josh Willingham, Austin Kearns, Elijah Dukes, Wily Mo Pena and Lastings Milledge). I guess the Lerners really need to placate fans after losing out on Mark Teixiera. I don't really see much to like about this team. They have one major league quality pitcher in John Lannan (maybe two if Jordan Zimmermann's spring isn't a fluke) and about the only thing fans have to get excited is the June draft where the Nationals will probably draft uber-prospect Stephen Strasburg (now that Jim Bowden is no longer around to say no).
Up Next: NL Central
1st: Phillies (88-74)
2nd: Mets (85-77)
3rd: Braves (84-78)
4th: Marlins (79-83)
5th: Nationals (65-97)
I don't really like the Phillies' signing of Raul Ibanez, especially when a younger, better, right-handed Pat Burrell signed for cheaper and for fewer years. Nevertheless, most of last year's World Series winning team is back and their holes are relatively minor and could be resolved through trades or internally (starting pitching depth [right now the Phillies are banking on three tentative things: Cole Hamels' health, Brett Myers' consistency and 46-year-old Jamie Moyer's effectiveness], a left-handed reliever for the first 50 games [until J.C. Romero returns from suspension] and a right-handed bench bat).
The Mets' offseason reminds me of that scene from Vegas Vacation where Chevy Chase creates a hole in the Hoover Dam and tries to plug it with a stick of gum only to find more and more holes created. They did a great job revitalizing their bullpen by acquiring Francisco Rodriguez and J.J. Putz but there are enough other holes on this team to prevent them for winning the division. Last year, the Mets relied on the likes of Carlos Delgado, Fernando Tatis and Daniel Murphy to keep them afloat. They can't do that again. Their offense is rather weak outside of their three fantastic hitters--David Wright, Jose Reyes and Carlos Beltran. Their rotation also drops off significantly after Johan Santana. I expect one of the two between John Maine and Mike Pelfrey to have a healthy, productive season but any time Livan Hernandez is in a starting rotation, there is a major, major problem.
Atlanta had a strange few months with their franchise player (John Smoltz) wearing something other than a Braves uniform for the first time since 1988. Additionally, the Braves had a lot of drama surronding their near-miss free agent signings of Rafael Furcal and Ken Griffey Jr. and also nearly missed out on A.J. Burnett and Jake Peavy. However, they still did a great job re-tooling their rotation by acquiring three decent starters in Derek Lowe, Javier Vazquez and Kenshin Kawakami. Their offense should be respectable and if they get improvement from Casey Kotchman and a rebound from Jeff Francoeur the Braves could be a scary team.
The Marlins took me by surprise last year by finishing above .500 and very well could do so again. Their young rotation of Ricky Nolasco, Josh Johnson, Chris Volstad, Andrew Miller and Anibal Sanchez could end up being the best in the National League. I am concerned that they gave up too many unspectatular but useful players in the offseason in Josh Willingham, Scott Olsen, Mike Jacobs, Kevin Gregg and Joe Nelson. They will need youngsters and rookies to fill these roles and if they are unable to do so and if there is expected inconsistency out of the young pitching, more names may be added to the 'give up' list come July 31st.
I don't really understand the Nationals' signing of Adam Dunn especially with a rotation that is in shambles and for a team whose one surplus is in first base/outfield type players (Nick Johnson, Dmitri Young, Josh Willingham, Austin Kearns, Elijah Dukes, Wily Mo Pena and Lastings Milledge). I guess the Lerners really need to placate fans after losing out on Mark Teixiera. I don't really see much to like about this team. They have one major league quality pitcher in John Lannan (maybe two if Jordan Zimmermann's spring isn't a fluke) and about the only thing fans have to get excited is the June draft where the Nationals will probably draft uber-prospect Stephen Strasburg (now that Jim Bowden is no longer around to say no).
Up Next: NL Central
On the Necessity of Cinderella Teams
THEY AREN'T. Necessary, that is. Other than the obligatory championship predictions, the majority of what I've heard on talk radio the past two days boils down to disappointed moaning, complaining, whining, and downright bitching. So, what if last year all four number one seeds made it to the Final Four? So what if this year the Sweet Sixteen is comprised of four 1's, four 2's, four 3's, two 4's, a 5, and a 12? These pundits act as if a tournament without a Cinderella team is an utter failure. If you get a Honus Wagner in every pack of Cracker Jacks and a Bill Ripken error card with every stick of gum, they aren't rare anymore. If a George Mason makes it to the Final Four every year, it loses its meaning.
So, Dear Columnists and Talk Show Hosts, WE KNOW. We know there is no Cinderella team in the Sweet Sixteen. Now that we know, you aren't allowed to bring it up again until after the tournament. We know that the brackets have been mostly *"Chalk," but stop saying this is a disappointment. Just because something is fun and extraordinary when it does happen doesn't mean it is disappointing when it doesn't happen.
I have some theories on why so many "experts" are making these complaints:
-They aren't big enough fans of the sport to appreciate the game itself, they just want a story to hype.
Although plausible, I don't really agree with my own theory here. Most of the guys I listen to at least seem like they are into it. Moreover, there are PLENTY of stories going on in the tournament right now. I'll talk about some of them in a second.
-The need for a "Cinderella" is just another manifestation of the sports writer, broadcaster, talk show host need to witness and cover one of the greatest moments in sports that will live on forever.
Seriously. Why can't "exceptional" suffice? Or even just "good"? Why does the question always have to be asked "Could [insert performance] in [insert sport] be THE BEST EVER? I've only (seriously) been following sports for about a year now, and I swear I've heard THE BEST EVER been mentioned hundreds of times. Give it a rest and enjoy the game for what it is. Stories can be told without them having to be one for the history books. Not to mention, your coverage will not be the make-or-break that determines how we remember a game or a tournament.
-Their brackets suck. Experts want to be the ones to pick the great upsets. They are pissed when the games go chalk because in their heads, they wanted to go chalk but forced themselves to pick a few "intelligent upsets."
I think this has a lot of merit. I know I do the same thing. I pick at least one 12 over a 5 seed as a rule. What makes me and other sports laymen different from the sports expert? I don't complain when I'm wrong, and my bracket is pretty bad. Keep watching. I say again, appreciate the sport for the sport. This is not about you.
Whatever the reason may be, the fact is the media for the past two days has been harping on the fact that this tournament has so far proved somehow disappointing. They cite a lack of a Cinderella team. Stop emphasizing this. If a tournament is going chalk, then the Selection Committee must have done a decent job. And if your response is "But what about teams like Davidson, St. Mary's, and San Diego State?" then I say WHY AREN'T YOU WATCHING THE NIT? The tournament is 65 teams, not every pretty little mid-major can make it. The NIT is still quality basketball.
The point is, stop indoctrinating listeners to believe that something crazy seed-wise has to happen for March Madness to be "mad." There are currently sixteen very good teams left in the tournament and some very entertaining games to be had. That's mad enough for me. Despite the chalk, let's take a brief look at some of the better stories so far in only two rounds of the tournament:
-Before a single game had been played, yells erupt that Arizona should not have gotten into the tournament. They are the sole-surving PAC-10 team.
-Five, count 'em FIVE Big East teams are left, probably the most physical conference out there.
-Blake Griffin gets thrown and slammed into the floor by some dude know one has ever heard of (and I refuse to dignify him with looking up his name) from Morgan St. Griffin plays the bigger man and doesn't retaliate. He even tells Jim Rome that he understand why the guy did it.
-UConn posts the third largest winning margin ever in the tournament, beating Chattanooga by 56, honoring their hospitalized coach.
-For the superstitious and fellow Huskie fans, UConn won it all in 1999 and 2004, a five year difference. Five years later, it's 2009. Both times they came out of the West. 2009: They're in the West. Jim Calhoun has only missed two other tournament games. Both were years that they won it all.
-Pitt, a number one seed and many people's favorite, struggles in their first TWO games.
-Dayton knocks off West Virginia. Cleveland State knocks off Wake Forest!
-Marquette player Lazar Hayward steps over the line on an inbound pass with just seconds left to turn the ball over, eliminating the possibility of a buzzer beater and a sixth Big East team to move on.
-Not one, not two, but THREE twelve seeds beat the five seeds in the first round.
Those are just some of the highlights of a fantastic two rounds of play in this March Madness tournament. There is sure to be more where that came from. This list might not satisfy the sports media pundits, but it's enough to make me go crazy. Or should I say, mad.
*If you didn't already know, "chalk" refers to teams advancing that were favored to advance, based on seed.
So, Dear Columnists and Talk Show Hosts, WE KNOW. We know there is no Cinderella team in the Sweet Sixteen. Now that we know, you aren't allowed to bring it up again until after the tournament. We know that the brackets have been mostly *"Chalk," but stop saying this is a disappointment. Just because something is fun and extraordinary when it does happen doesn't mean it is disappointing when it doesn't happen.
I have some theories on why so many "experts" are making these complaints:
-They aren't big enough fans of the sport to appreciate the game itself, they just want a story to hype.
Although plausible, I don't really agree with my own theory here. Most of the guys I listen to at least seem like they are into it. Moreover, there are PLENTY of stories going on in the tournament right now. I'll talk about some of them in a second.
-The need for a "Cinderella" is just another manifestation of the sports writer, broadcaster, talk show host need to witness and cover one of the greatest moments in sports that will live on forever.
Seriously. Why can't "exceptional" suffice? Or even just "good"? Why does the question always have to be asked "Could [insert performance] in [insert sport] be THE BEST EVER? I've only (seriously) been following sports for about a year now, and I swear I've heard THE BEST EVER been mentioned hundreds of times. Give it a rest and enjoy the game for what it is. Stories can be told without them having to be one for the history books. Not to mention, your coverage will not be the make-or-break that determines how we remember a game or a tournament.
-Their brackets suck. Experts want to be the ones to pick the great upsets. They are pissed when the games go chalk because in their heads, they wanted to go chalk but forced themselves to pick a few "intelligent upsets."
I think this has a lot of merit. I know I do the same thing. I pick at least one 12 over a 5 seed as a rule. What makes me and other sports laymen different from the sports expert? I don't complain when I'm wrong, and my bracket is pretty bad. Keep watching. I say again, appreciate the sport for the sport. This is not about you.
Whatever the reason may be, the fact is the media for the past two days has been harping on the fact that this tournament has so far proved somehow disappointing. They cite a lack of a Cinderella team. Stop emphasizing this. If a tournament is going chalk, then the Selection Committee must have done a decent job. And if your response is "But what about teams like Davidson, St. Mary's, and San Diego State?" then I say WHY AREN'T YOU WATCHING THE NIT? The tournament is 65 teams, not every pretty little mid-major can make it. The NIT is still quality basketball.
The point is, stop indoctrinating listeners to believe that something crazy seed-wise has to happen for March Madness to be "mad." There are currently sixteen very good teams left in the tournament and some very entertaining games to be had. That's mad enough for me. Despite the chalk, let's take a brief look at some of the better stories so far in only two rounds of the tournament:
-Before a single game had been played, yells erupt that Arizona should not have gotten into the tournament. They are the sole-surving PAC-10 team.
-Five, count 'em FIVE Big East teams are left, probably the most physical conference out there.
-Blake Griffin gets thrown and slammed into the floor by some dude know one has ever heard of (and I refuse to dignify him with looking up his name) from Morgan St. Griffin plays the bigger man and doesn't retaliate. He even tells Jim Rome that he understand why the guy did it.
-UConn posts the third largest winning margin ever in the tournament, beating Chattanooga by 56, honoring their hospitalized coach.
-For the superstitious and fellow Huskie fans, UConn won it all in 1999 and 2004, a five year difference. Five years later, it's 2009. Both times they came out of the West. 2009: They're in the West. Jim Calhoun has only missed two other tournament games. Both were years that they won it all.
-Pitt, a number one seed and many people's favorite, struggles in their first TWO games.
-Dayton knocks off West Virginia. Cleveland State knocks off Wake Forest!
-Marquette player Lazar Hayward steps over the line on an inbound pass with just seconds left to turn the ball over, eliminating the possibility of a buzzer beater and a sixth Big East team to move on.
-Not one, not two, but THREE twelve seeds beat the five seeds in the first round.
Those are just some of the highlights of a fantastic two rounds of play in this March Madness tournament. There is sure to be more where that came from. This list might not satisfy the sports media pundits, but it's enough to make me go crazy. Or should I say, mad.
*If you didn't already know, "chalk" refers to teams advancing that were favored to advance, based on seed.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Creation
Virginia is For Ballers is now in existence, so named because this author is a Virginian (and baller) and the topic will be sports. Commence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)