Well this isn’t baseball related, but we can’t resist a great human interest piece. Via ESPN, the mayor of Pittsburgh has begun the petition process to officially change his name from Luke Ravenstahl to Luke Steelerstahl, in anticipation of the Steelers AFC Championship match-up with the Baltimore Ravens. Now that’s commitment. Fortunately for [Insert politically useful word here]stahl, he won’t have to worry about changing his name to Luke Piratestahl anytime soon.
Here at DTS we go in for our fair share of mockery. We tend to employ a light, but brilliantly satirical, tone, and we have a great fondness for pointing out the absurd. Generally, however, we direct our mighty wit at the men and women of MLB — the execs, the GMs, the owners, the umpires, and above all else, the players. We don’t usually take shots at other bloggers or members of the mainstream media (whatever that means). There are plenty of other brilliant and talented writers who point out the failures and shortcomings of the people who cover the sport we love. Just take a look at someone like King Kaufman. But, on occasion, we’ll come across a premise so laughable, or content so offensive, that we feel compelled to comment.
Enter Cory Humes of “Pirate Revolution,” who recently wrote a blog post advising Neal Huntington to trade Nate McLouth for a boatload of prospects, and then turn around and pry Nick Swisher from the Yankees for Zach Duke and John Grabow. Now let’s be fair, Mr. Humes’ piece is not offensive, nor is it truly absurd. The website as a whole seems to be well laid out and full of thoughtful and useful work. In fact, any Pirates fan would be well advised to make regular visits to the site.
With that said, we must take Mr. Humes to task, somewhat, for this particular proposal. Consider first Mr. Humes’ reasoning for trading McLouth:
In 2008 at age 26, Nate McLouth hit .276/.356/.497 (a 126 OPS+) with 26 HR and 94 RBI in 597 at-bats. In 2006 and 2007, McLouth had posted OPS+ lines of 74 and 110 while being used as a part-time player. He earned the league minimum in all three seasons and is now arbitration-eligible for the first time. The Pirates’ attempt to sign McLouth to a contract extension was reportedly rebuffed when McLouth and his agent felt as if the player wasn’t being valued fairly.
No matter what happens in 2009, the Pirates can’t come out ahead.
If McLouth performs as he did in 2008, then his price almost certainly will skyrocket. He will be two seasons away from free agency and should command an eight-figure average annual salary. If McLouth regresses in 2008, then the Pirates would be right to question whether or not the player was a one-year wonder and would be wise to go season-to-season with McLouth’s contract.”
This line of reasoning is essentially inarguable; if McLouth continues to hit, he will start earning some big paychecks; if he regresses, a long-term contract extension would seem to be an unnecessary risk. The problems come from the conclusion Humes’ draws from all this:
Trade Nate McLouth now for a haul similar to the one Billy Beane received in January of 2008 [from the White Sox in exchange for Nick Swisher].”
This haul, two pretty nifty pitching prospects (Gio Gonzalez and Fautino De Los Santos) and a fourth or fifth outfielder (Ryan Sweeney), seems like a hefty price to expect in return for a poor-fielding CF who has had one full year of duty — albeit a nicely productive year. Moreover, the number of teams willing to part with two young pitching prospects for a player who is soon to be due a sizable raise via arbitration is small indeed. Until recently, young pitching had come to be the most valued commodity in the game. Now, cash is probably the most valued commodity. Humes’ trade proposal demands that a team surrender both of these.
Finally, at the end of the piece, Humes verges into the entirely implausible.
Then, replace McLouth’s offensive production in the lineup by acquiring Nick Swisher from the Yankees at a discount.
After signing Mark Teixeira to a monstrous $180 million contract, the Yankees have a surplus of players at first base and in the outfield. Swisher and former Pirate Xavier Nady are believed to be on the trade block. ESPN’s Rob Neyer feels that the Yankees need another bullpen arm, and Cashman is rumored to have interest in stockpiling pitching depth. Send John Grabow and Zach Duke to New York.
*snip*
The Yankees, though, might feel as other clubs have: that the Pirates are inept, and their fringe players can be redeveloped. The Yankees might still see the promise Duke showed as a rookie in 2005. And in Grabow, they would receive one of the top left-handed relievers in the game in 2008.”
The Yankees already have a player who has been touted as “one of the top left-handed relievers in the game” — in fact, they got him at the trade deadline from the Pirates. As for Zach Duke? He doesn’t represent an upgrade over Ian Kennedy, Al Aceves, Phil Coke, Chase Wright or any number of unproven Yankees minor leaguers. Swisher is a quality player, and the only Yankee outfielder not named Cabrera or Gardner who will be under contract beyond 2009.
Humes is probably right to suggest that the Pirates would be best served to trade McLouth now, while his value is at its maximum, but — unfortunately for Pirates fans — Humes is probably overestimating what the team could get in exchange, and certainly underestimating Brian Cashman.
In fairness, Mr. Humes addresses these and other issues in the comments of the piece. And none of this is intended as disrespect towards him or Pirate Revolution — as previously stated, it is our humble opinion that this is a highly admirable blog. Mostly, we just want to point out that when a team has a surplus at a certain position, those players tend to become the focus of some fairly one-sided trades. The Yankees would be best served to hold onto their surplus unless a truly tempting trade proposal comes along, and Brian Cashman assuredly knows this.
To our loyal readers,
Wow, so you’re our loyal reader(s). Hi. Not to be rude, but are you sure you’ve come to the right place? You are sure? Ok. Well thanks. Anyway, this is just to tell you, DTS shall return! Honest, we swear. Starting on December 20th January 2nd, we will be back, with a new look, new writers, new features, increased focus, more snark, more pizzazz, more A-Rod malarky, more mustache critiquing, and more Yankees bias than ever. Thanks for sticking with us. You have superb taste, and are extremely good looking. See you on the 20th.
Sincerely,
Johnny Wills, John Henning, and all the DTS crew.
P.S. If you need your Yankees fix between now and the 20th, head over to RiverAveBlues.Com.
All the shenanigans surrounding the departure, return, departure, and arrival of Brett Favre got us thinking: would the retirement and subsequent return of one of the greatest baseball players of all time cause as big a stir as ol’ Gray Beard’s brief dalliance with unemployment. (Incidentally, don’t you think it was the prospect of having nothing but “Just for Men” ads to look forward to that finally brought Brett to his senses about retirement? I mean sure, as a QB he’s going to get pounded by more 300 pound men than a character on Oz, but at least he’ll get to keep his dignity). Back to the question at hand. Fortunately, we have the perfect example with which to examine this question. Sort of. We refer, as always, to Barry Bonds.
There are (as there are in all things related to the big double B) some complications. First of all, Bondsy didn’t choose retirement, he had retirement thrust upon him. Secondly, there’s that whole steroids thing, and that whole perjury indictment thing.
These complications aside, it is fair to say that at the end of the ‘07 season, one of the most accomplished players in the history of the NFL and one of the most accomplished players in the history of MLB departed their respective sports. As seen above, Brett Favre was given the opportunity to tearfully bid farewell to the sport he so loved, and that loved him back. His announcement was followed by countless highlight videos and tribute pieces. Bonds, on the other hand, was more or less ridden out of town, his departure announced not by himself, but by his team’s owner, who kindly informed him that his services were no longer required — not to his face of course, but by informing the media that the team would not be looking to resign Barry under any circumstances. Oh, and this announcement came before the ‘07 season had even concluded. Barry’s exile became all but assured after the Winter Meetings, when no team expressed interest in signing him. When the ‘08 season started, and it became quite clear that Barry Bonds had played his last inning of baseball (in spite of our best efforts to convince Brian Cashman to sign the man), no beautifully edited video packages were aired on ESPN, no sombre and tasteful features were produced on his storied (hey! switch two letters around and you get steroid.) career. Based on how the mainstream media has dealt with Bar Bar, it would appear that most journalists consider him to be worse then George W. Bush but better than Dick Cheney on the scale of good to evil. Barely. Favre on the other hand, depending on what part of the country you look at, is somewhere between a lifetime supply of free ice cream and Jesus.
Then, of course, came news of Brett’s “itch” to play again. (Speaking of itches, on top of Just for Men ads, Brett could probably replace John Madden in those “tough actin’ Tinactin” athlete’s foot cream commercials — just a thought for when you finally do hang it up, Brett. Unless of course they’ve cured athlete’s foot by 2020). This was followed by weeks of intrigue, and finally a trade to the Jets. His first practice with the team drew of 10,000 onlookers.
Bonds, on the other hand, though his services have been available for peanuts to anyone who asks (well, most anyone — sorry, Kansas City), has barely drummed up any interest, and has been mentioned in a mere handful of articles.
So what’s the deal? Is the huge disparity in level of interest due solely to the fact that Favre is adored and Bonds is reviled? We think not. Head on back to 2003-2004 and check out a man named Roger Clemens. At the time, a well-beloved, newly-retired-turned-newly-unretired athlete. While his exit from and subsequent return to the game garnered a good deal of interest, it hardly rivals Favre Fever (copyright, Dropped Third Strike, MMVII). No, we believe that the reasons run deeper than the individuals involved.
Walt Whitman is said to have proclaimed: “I see great things in baseball. It’s our game — the American game.” But, like most things Walt said, that’s a bunch of crap. For a variety of reasons, baseball has simply never had the sex-appeal of its burlier brother, football. Maybe it’s the 162 game season. Maybe it’s the fact that even a game-winning, walk-off grand slam can’t equal the excitement and athleticism of a 75 yard touchdown pass as time expires, of Elway leading a 4th quarter comeback, of Peyton (or Eli) Manning running the 2-minute offense. Whatever the reason, the fact remains, baseball just doesn’t have that one superstar that everyone knows and loves. There’s no Tiger, no Michael or Kobe or Lebron, no Roger, no Great One or Super Mario, no Favre or Montana or Rice. Sure there’s a pantheon of great players, of names that all sports fans know, (Ruth, Mantle, Williams, Aaron, Mays, etc.) but baseball simply doesn’t produce the household names that other sports do. Peyton Manning hosted Saturday Night Live and has been in every commercial in the history of television, Brett Favre was in a Ben Stiller movie, Tiger Woods fascinates us so much that golf might as well be renamed Tiger Ball. (Though that might prove slightly misleading to extreme sports/big cat enthusiasts). Seriously, can you imagine Roy Halladay doing a commercial for Gillette? Or Albert Pujols doing a Sprint ad?
No, baseball players fascinate us most, it seems, when they find themselves wrapped up in a major controversy. Bonds, of course. But also, Pete Rose. And the granddaddy of ‘em all, Roger Clemens. Never was there more interest in him than when the Mitchell report was released and the lawsuits came pouring in. And this seems unlikely to change. Baseball will continue to sell itself on its history, on its rivalries, on the smell of the grass, on the tinny sounds of an announcer’s voice issuing forth from a radio as you sit out on the porch, on playing catch, on taking your kids to their first ball game. And that’s all well and good, and a large part of why we love this game so much. But as we finish watching the Yankees wrap up their 118th game in much the same sloppy, irksome manner that they finished off 30 or so other games this season, we can’t help but start to imagine what it’s going to sound like the first time Brett Favre zips a clean, tight spiral into the hands of one of his new Jet receivers.
…Then the appropriate course of action is, we believe, to join ‘em. In spite of our best efforts to make this a BASEBALL oriented blog, the most popular piece on this little site of mine (I’m going to let it shine) is the one about soccer super-stud, Cristiano Ronaldo. Now, we originally wrote about the Portuguese ball-kicker in passing, never expecting to return to him. But we’ve come to realize that the fleet-of-foot-footballer-cum-sex-icon draws a lot of attention, and we’re not averse to capitalizing on it.
When last we spoke of young Cris, we pointed out that, like another handsome, purple-lipped master of his sport (uhh that’s A-Rod in case you hadn’t realized), he seems bound to fail in the most critical of moments. Today we present three more traits he shares with with his baseball counterpart: a distinct and unadulterated love of money, a notable lack of tact, and a mighty poor sense of timing.
In recent days, the Manchester United star has been making noise about a move to Spanish juggernaut Real Madrid, describing the move as “a dream, a step forward.” Hardly gracious words for his current club, a team that supported him through hard times, particularly after the 2006 World Cup when he earned the wrath of British football fans by taunting and inciting his United teammate — and British national team member — Wayne Rooney, into committing a foul for which he was shown a red card. Tactless, indeed, to describe the team that developed and coddled you as second-class. As for timing, he allowed this saga to continue during the Euro 2008 Championships, causing a distraction for his teammates on the Portuguese national team. As for his love of money: Ronaldo, a 23 year old, seems to be as interested in the 300,000 Euros per week he is likely to earn in Madrid as he is in the “prestige” of the team. We can’t help but think of Alex Rodriguez, merely a year older, chasing the money and heading out to Texas. Undoubtedly, Real Madrid is a much higher caliber club than the Rangers, but Ronaldo would be leaving a place where he has been comfortable and successful — he scored a league-leading 42 goals last season (the next most was 24) — and heading to unknown territory. Perhaps he will thrive, or perhaps, like Rodriguez and Texas, three years into the marriage both he and Real will be doing everything they can to send the young star onto his next destination. Who knows, maybe with luck he’ll end up in the MLS.
